Faithful Palabras

Psalm 5

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000

My words - spoken into silence
Breathed in meditation
Delivered up to you
Your words - fiercer than a lion
Give hope to the nations
I’m waiting to hear from you
In the morning quiet
Waiting in patience
For my king is true.

Quarter - you will not give
to those who seek destruction
and wallow in filth
Evil knows it cannot live
The criminal is busted
The liar walks in guilt
Hatred is love facing sin
God’s righteous compunction
to clean the world he built

As for me, I know of
The abundance of your mercy
And that you welcome home
Those who look for hope above
Who know they are not worthy
But have abandoned the room
Who follow the path of love
Lives like fruitful trees
Which God protects from foes

Human sin runs so deep
An ocean unfathomable
A grave that can swallow all
Those under wrath will weep
Captured and unable
To save themselves from a fall
But all who trust in God will sleep
In peace unfathomable
From him who hears when I call.

Psalm 6

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Oh Lord, is it I who am your enemy?
Have I become as those who go astray?
Deliver me, Lord and set my soul free,
I shake with fear but know you can save

Life itself can’t hold a candle to your love
Give life, for in death will arise not praise
Tears rain down around me as a flood
I’m weary and tormented in countless ways

Enemies surround me on every side
I’m growing blind with the pain of it all
All who do evil - you cannot abide
For the Lord my redeemer hears me when I call

The Lord is merciful and hears my plea
He has compassion and works his might
All of my enemies will turn and flee
And all of the saints rejoice at the sight

Live Not By Lies

Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Listen: Live Not By Lies

Your browser does not support the audio element.

One (uh), two (uh), three (yeah), four
In comes the emperor through that open door
Naked as a jaybird, for all to see
Yet they proclaim, “he’s dressed so graciously”
How will you respond when they turn to you?
What will you answer? What will you do?

(Chorus)
Can you speak from the shadows and live in the light?
Can you go against your conscience and not lose your life?
What will it take to stand when the crowd cries?
What is the cost to live not by lies?

At every turn, at every junction,
Your soul burns, an overwhelming unction
Suppress the truth and you’ll avoid the pain
Confess the truth and the abuses rain
How will you respond when they turn to you?
What will you answer? What will you do?

The reason is simple, a word from the wise
When you face the tribunal, don’t be surprised
When they ask you to affirm what you know to be false
When they try to make you squirm and count the cost
Remember in that moment, that what they fear they despise
It is the truth which prevails, so live not by lies.

Thanksgiving

Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Listen: Thanksgiving

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Count your blessings one by one
Don’t forget the things he’s done
Daily reminders of things we know
Never forgetting the love he’s shown

But we’re surrounded by chaos and clanging noise
How can we remember when we can’t reflect?
Moment to moment, hour to hour, sound without pause
In our ears, before our eyes, it may be truth, it may be lies

So we forget, even when we remember
Thanksgiving arrives and passes in to December
Bellies full, and vacations enjoyed
But we’ve never stopped to silence the noise

What are you thankful for?
Is it life, it is health, is it something more?
When you stop to consider, the lives we lead,
There’s a deep truth that we have what we need.

In every moment and circumstance,
Whatever the verdict, the plan, the chance,
The ancient command rings loud and rings true
Give thanks in all circumstances, and thus we must do

Not because every moment is pleasant
Not because the pain we can’t feel
But because we have a Father in heaven,
Who numbers our days, and his love is real

When you see this truth and your life in its light
Everything you hold dear, the cheery and bright
All that you wish wasn’t bear, which gives you fright
Every experience which comes your way
Becomes an opportunity to lookup and say
Thanks be to the one who brought me here
Who leads me in hope, who calms my fear
Who provides for my needs, and weeds out my sins
Who brings me peace, and teaches me to hope in him
We give thanks in birth, in life, and in death
For every step we take on the path of life
Molds us into the pattern of our Christ
He was born, he lived, he suffered, he died,
So that when he rose, we could share in life.

Lewis, That Hideous Strength

Fri, 21 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

This third and final installment of the space trilogy was quite different from the previous two. It started off slower, and stayed slower until quite a way in. It was very much “down to earth” for a good part of the book. I do think it was one of the more brilliant of his novels and perhaps the most prophetic. With a few updates to setting and technology, this book could just have easily been set in the past decade rather than 3/4 of a century ago.

The great technological steam engine has continued to roll forward and the idea of enhancing and even supplanting humanity is now spoken not just in the shadows but on podcasts and YouTube videos by very influential people. I have had a sneaking suspicion that our current “AI moment” is this generations “Tower of Babel”, but even it isn’t, the tower is being built. The powers driving technology development in the world today are in fast pursuit of a means of defeating and avoiding the death which looms over each of us. Make no mistake, this is the fundamental driving motivation behind the investments being made today - every other gain or loss is a mere side effect to achieving immortality, in one way or another.

The other keen insight that Lewis has is the recognition that these technological marvels are not spiritually void. When we rush headlong into these things we summon what we do know from where we have not been. There are real spiritual forces at work in the world and we are naive to think they are absent from the efforts of technology (and AI, in particular).

Highlights

Chapter 1

The bureaucratic board meeting results in a manipulated decision to sell Bragdon Wood. Jane has disturbing nightmare and seeks help from Mr. and Mrs. Dimble.

We get to Jane’s drab existence right out the gate:

“Mutual society, help, and comfort,” said Jane bitterly. In reality marriage had proved to be the door out of a world of work and comradeship and laughter and innumerable things to do, into something like solitary confinement. (12)

The way things are done now is through confusion, misdirection, and bureaucratic manipulation:

Three years ago, if Mark Studdock had come to a college Meeting at which such a question was to be decided, he would have expected to hear the claims of sentiment against progress and beauty against utility openly debated. Today, as he took his seat in the Soler, the the long upper room on the south of Lady Alice, he expected no such matter. He knew now that that was not the way things are done. (21)

Jane’s discovering in Mrs. Dimble someone to confide in:

And then, for a moment, Mrs. Dimble became simply a grown-up as grown-ups had been when one was a very small child: large, warm, soft objects to whom one ran with bruised knees or broken toys. (28)

Chapter 2

Mark gets invited to the insider circle and connects with Feverstone who invites him to take on a role with NICE. Jane is more uneasy about her dreams and contemplates a visit to the Dimble’s recommendation.

The good wine was beginning to do its good office. We have all known the kind of clergyman who tends to forget his clerical collar after the third glass; but Busby’s habit was the reverse. It was after the third glass that he began to remember his collar. As wine and candlelight loosened his tongue, the parson still latent within him after thirty years’ apostasy began to wake into strange galvanic life. (35)

Mark was silent. The giddy sensation of being suddenly whirled up from one plane of secrecy to another, coupled with the growing effect of Curry’s excellent port, prevented him from speaking. (38)

“Man has got to take charge of Man. That means, remember, that some men have got to take charge of the rest - which is another reason for cashing in on it as soon as one can. You and I want to be the people who do the taking charge, not the ones who are taken charge of. Quite.”

Jane travels on the train but barely notices anyone else:

for though she was theoretically an extreme democrat, no social class save her own had yet become a reality to her in any place except the printed page. (48)

Chapter 3

Mark travels to N.I.C.E., uncertain why he’s there or what he’ll be doing, left feeling like an outsider but with a taste of the thrill of being an insider. Jane travels to see Miss Ironwood and is told that her disturbing dreams are actually visions of reality, and that she could put them to use saving humanity, or else others might want her to use them for harm.

Mark dis not ask again in so many words what the N.I.C.E. wanted him to do; partly because he began to be afraid that he was supposed to know this already, and partly because he began to be afraid that he was supposed to know this already, and partly because a perfectly direct question would have sounded a crudity in that room - a crudity which might suddenly exclude him from the warm and almost drugged atmosphere of vague, yet heavily important, confidence in which he was gradually being enfolded. (52)

Mark’s initial euphoria being included by Hardcastle:

All this was disagreeable. But it was made up for by the deliciously esoteric character of the conversation. Several times that day he had been made to feel himself an outsider; that feeling completely disappeared while Miss Hardcastle was talking to him. He had the sense of getting in. (67)

Bill Hingest gets it.

“…I happen to believe that you can’t study men; you can only get to know them, which is quite a different thing. Because you study them, you want to make the lower orders govern the country and listen to classical music, which is balderdash. You also want to take away from them everything which makes life worth living and not only from them but from everyone except a parcel of prigs and professors.”

“I suppose there are two views about everything,” said Mark. “Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there’s never more than one. But it’s no affair of mine. Good night.” (70)

Chapter 4

Husbands were make to be talked to. It helps them concentrate their minds on what they’re reading - like the sound of a weir. There! - you’re yawning again. (75)

And at the name of Jesus, Mark, who would have lectured on abortion or perversion to an audience of young women without a qualm, felt himself so embarrassed that he knew his cheeks were slightly reddening; and he became so angry with himself and Mr. Straik at this discovery that they proceeded to redden very much indeed. This was exactly the kind of conversation he could not endure; and never since the well remembered misery of scripture lessons at school had he felt so uncomfortable. He muttered something about his ignorance of theology. (77)

Though he had never noticed it himself, he had a great reluctance, in his work, ever to use such words as “man” or “woman.” He preferred to write about “vocational groups,” “elements,” “classes” and “populations”: for, in his own way, he believes as firmly as any mystic in the superior reality of the things that are not seen. (85)

Chapter 5

Mark intends to quit NICE and ends up stuck even further. Jane gets recruited to serve Ransom.

Isn’t is absolutely essential to keep a fierce Left and a fierce Right, both on their toes and each terrified of the other? That’s how we get things done. Any opposition to the N.I.C.E. is represented as a Left racket in the Right papers and a Right racket in the Left papers. If it’s properly done, you get each side outbidding the other in support of us - to refute the enemy slanders. Of course we’re non-political. The real power always is. (97)

Our modern day elections in a nutshell:

“Why you fool, it’s the educated reader who can be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they’re all propaganda and skips the leading articles. (97)

Chapter 6

Jane is reluctantly recruited to the group at St. Anne’s, while Mark eagerly seeks the insider role at NICE, getting pulled into writing cover for a manufactured crisis.

Sometimes you need a crisis to get your policies in place:

“Emergency regulations,” said Feverstone. “You’ll never get the powers we want at Edgestow until the Government declares that a state of emergency exists there.” “Exactly,” said Filostrato. “It is folly to talk of a peaceful revolutions. Not that the canaglia would always resist - often they have to prodded into it - but until there is the disturbance, the firing, the barricades - no one gets powers to act effectively. There is not enough what you call weight on the boat to steer him.” (127)

But the moment of his consent almost escaped his notice; certainly, there was no struggle, no sense of turning a corner. There many have been a time in the world’s history when such moments fully revealed their gravity, with witches prophesying on a blasted heath or visible Rubicons to be crossed. But, for him, it all slipped past in a chatter of laughter, of that intimate laughter between fellow professionals, which of all earthly powers is strongest to make men do very bad things before they are yet, individually, very bad men. (127)

Chapter 7

Jane meets with Ransom and is overwhelmed by his kingliness and desires to stay. She instead learns that her marriage is vital and is sent out. Subsequently she’s arrested by Hardcastle and escapes back to St. Anne’s.

Jane is undone in first meeting Ransom.

For the first time in all those years she tasted the work King itself with all linked associations of battle, marriage, priesthood, mercy, and power. At the moment, as her eyes first rested on her face, Jane forgot who she was, and where, and her faint grudge against Grace Ironwood, and her more obscure grudge against Mark, and her childhood and her father’s house. (140)

I am not allowed to use desperate remedies until desperate diseases are really apparent. Otherwise we become just like our enemies - breaking all the rules whenever we imagine that it might possibly do some vague good to humanity in the remote future. (142)

Chapter 8

While Jane retreats to St. Anne’s and learns more of the director’s mastery over and harmony with nature, Mark is told that Jane needs to join them. He is introduced to the grand vision of an organism-free universe ruled by an immortal mad, a manufactured God.

Mark reflects on the sobering impact Jane would have at Belbury:

Her mere presence would have made all the laughter of the Inner Ring sound metallic, unreal; and what he now regarded as common prudence would seem to her, and through her to himself, mere flattery, back-biting and toad-eating. (168)

Winter’s attempt to get away from organic life:

In us organic life has produced Mind. It has done its work. After that we want no more of it. We do not want the world any longer furred over with organic life, like what you call the blue mould - all sprouting and budding and breeding and decaying. We must get rid of it. By little and little, of course. Slowly we learn how. Learn to make our brains live with less and less body: learn to build our bodies directly with chemicals, no longer have to stuff them full of dead brutes and weeds. Learn how to reproduce ourselves without copulation. (170)

Chapter 9

In this chapter, we get a glimpse beyond the veil and discover that NICE has resurrected the brain of a dead criminal and has grand visions for the future of the race. The demonic powers backing this endeavor become clear, and we learn that the interest in Bragdon Wood is due to the old magician from Arthurian Legend who lies beneath.

It must be remembered that in Mark’s mind hardly one rag of noble thought, either Christian or Pagan, had a secure lodging. His education had been neither scientific nor classical - merely “Modern.” The severities both of abstraction and of high human tradition had passed him by: and he had neither peasant shrewdness nor aristocratic honour to help him. (182)

The Director channels the transhumanists

It is the beginning of what is really a new species - the Chosen Heads who never die. They will call it the next step in evolution. And henceforward, all the creatures that you and I call human are mere candidates for admission to the new species or else its slaves - perhaps its food. (194)

The true unnaturalness of nature:

To those high creatures whose activity builds what we call Nature, nothing is “natural.” From their station the essential arbitrariness (so to call it) of every actual creation is ceaselessly visible; for them there are no basic assumptions: all springs with the willful beauty of a jest or a tune from that miraculous moment of self-limitation wherein the Infinite, rejecting a myriad possibilities, throws out of Himself the positive and elected invention. (199)

Chapter 10

Materialism is in fact no protection. Those who seek it in that hope (they are not negligible class) will be disappointed. The thing you fear is impossible. Well and good. Can you therefore cease to fear it? Not here and now. And what then? If you must see ghosts, it is better not to disbelieve in them (202)

What struck Mark deeply was the almost complete absence of indignation among the speakers, or even of any distinct sympathy with the refugees. Everyone present knew of at least one outrage in Edgestow; but all agreed that these refugees must be greatly exaggerating. “It says in this morning’s paper that things are pretty well settling down,” said the landlord. “That’s right,” agreed the others. “There’ll always been some who get awkward,” said the potato-faced man. “What’s the good of getting awkward?” asked another, “it’s got to go on. You can’t stop it.”… Fragments of articles which Mark himself had written drifted to and fro. Apparently he and his kind had done their work well… (212)

Chapter 11

While Jane and company attempt to discover the risen Merlin, Mark is arrested for murder and brought back to Belbury. Wither and Frost have a conversations that resembles Screwtape and Wormwood. Mark sits and contemplates death in his cell and realizes he’s been living a lie his whole life.

“Oh,” said Wither, “there is nothing I should more deeply deplore. Scientific examination (I cannot allow the word Torture in this context) in cases where a patient doesn’t know the answer is always a fatal mistake. As men of humanity we should neither of us…and then in you go on, the patient naturally does not recover…and if you stop, even an experienced operator is haunted by the fear that perhaps he did know after all. It is is every way unsatisfactory.” (237)

He had a picture of himself, the odious little outsider who wanted to be an insider, the infantile gull, drinking in the husky and unimportant confidences, as if he were being admitted to the government of the planet. Was there no beginning to his folly? Had he been utter fool all through from the very day of his birth? (243)

Chapter 12

Don’t do anything and don’t not do anything…

My dear young friend, the golden rule is very simple. There are only two errors which would be fatal to one placed in the peculiar situation which certain parts of your previous conduct have unfortunately created for you. On the one hand, anything like a lack of initiative or enterprise would be disastrous. On the other, the slightest approach to unauthorised action - anything which suggested that you were assuming a liberty of decision which, in all the circumstances, is not really yours - might have consequences from which even I could not protect you. But as long as you keep quite clear of these two extremes, there is no reason (speaking unofficially) why you should not be perfectly safe.” (250)

Frost’s anti-humanism

Your are to conceive the species as an animal which has discovered how to simplify nutrition and locomotion to such a point that the old complex organs and the large body which contained them are no longer necessary. That large body is therefore to disappear. Only a tenth art of it will now be needed to support the brain. The individual is to become all head. The human race is to become all Technocracy.” (256)

Chapter 13

Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of an even apparent neutrality are always diminishing. (281)

The luxury and poverty of modern life.

“Sir,” said Merlin in answer to the question which the director had just asked him. “I give you great thanks. I cannot indeed understand the way you live and your house is strange to me. You give me a bath such as the Emperor himself might envy, but no one attends me to it; a bed softer than sleep itself, but when I rise from it I find I must put on my own clothes with my own hands as if I were a peasant. I lie in a room with windows of pure crystal so that you can see the sky as clearly when they are shut as when they are open, and there is not wind enough within the room to blow out an unguarded tape; but I lie in it alone with no more honour than a prisoner in a dungeon. Your people eat dry and tasteless flesh but it is off plates as smooth as ivory and as round as the sun. In all the house there are warmth and softness and silence that ight put a man in mind of paradise terrestrial; but no hangings, no beautified pavements, no musicians, no perfumes, no high seats, not a gleam of gold, not a hawk, not a hound. You seem to me to live neither like a rich man nor a poor one: neither like a lord or a hermit. Sir, I tell you these things because you have asked me. They are of no importance. Now that none hears us save the last of the seven bears of Logres. it is time that we should open counsels to each other.” (284)

The poison was brewed in these West lands but it has spat itself everywhere by now. However far you went you would find the machines, the crowded cities, the empty thrones, the false writings, the barren beds: men maddened with false promises and soured with true miseries, worshipping the iron works of their own hands, cut off from the Earth there mother and from the Father in heaven. You might go East so far that East became West and you returned to Britain across the great ocean, but even so you would not have come out anywhere into the light. The shadow of one dark wing is over all Tellus.” (290)

Chapter 14

Mark never noticed until years later that here, where there was no room for vanity and no more power or security than that of “children playing in a giant’s kitchen,” he had unawares become a member of a “circle,” as secret and as strongly fenced against outsiders as any that he had dreamed of. (310)

Chapter 15

The celestial eldil descend and grant new powers to Merlin, who then goes undercover to N.I.C.E.. Meanwhile, Studdock has learned to resist the draw of Wither/Frost.

Chapter 16

…only one in the saddle of whose soul rode Mercury himself could thus have unmade language. And this again told him something worse. It meant that his own dark Masters had been completely out in their calculations. They had talked of a barrier which made it impossible that powers from Deep Heaven should reach the surface of the Earth; had assured him that nothing from outside could pass the Moon’s orbit. All their polity was based on the belief that Tellus was blockaded, beyond the reach of assistance and left (as far as that went) to their mercy and his. Therefore he knew the everything was lost. (350)

Chapter 17

“It is not contrary to the laws of Nature,” said a voice from the corner where Grace Ironwood sat, almost invisible in the shadows. “You are quite right. The laws of the universe are never broken. Your mistake is to think that the little regularities we have observed on one planet for a few hundred years are the real unbreakable laws; whereas they are only the remote results which the true laws bring about more often than not; as a kind of accident.” (366)

He doesn’t make two blades of grass the same; how much less two saints, two nations, two angels. The whole work of healing Tellus depends on nursing that little spark, on incarnating that ghost which is still alive in every real people, and different in each. When Logres really dominates Britain, when the goddess Reason, the divine clearness, is really enthroned in France, when the order of Heaven is really followed in China - why, then it will be spring. (369)

All his lectures were devoted to proving the impossibility of ethics, though in private life he’d walked ten miles rather than leave a penny debt unpaid. But all the same… was there a single doctrine practiced at Belbury which hadn’t been preached by some lecturer at Edgestow? Oh, of course, they never though any one would act on their theories! (369)

Perhaps it was all a dream; or perhaps it was the end of the world; or perhaps he was dead. But in spite of all perplexities, he was conscious of extreme well-being. His mind was ill at ease, but as for his body - health and youth and pleasure and longing seemed to be blowing towards him from the cloudy light upon the hill. He never doubted that he must keep on.(378)

Lewis, Perelandra

Fri, 21 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

We’ve been to Mars, now Venus is next
What you find there will leave you mildly perplexed
A new creation, as yet untainted by sin Filled with water and beautiful wonders within
Paradise Lost retold, complete with Satan to tempt
But not the same story, though danger’s not exempt
The twist is that Christ is still the redeemer king
And an earthling he sent, salvation to bring
Some say, “Crush the serpent’s head was what Adam should do!
And we see what could have been had it actually gone through
But it’s not all theology, don’t stress over that
There is a chase, space travel, and mortal combat

This second volume of C.S. Lewis’ space trilogy was altogether a different feel than the first. It’s an imaginative consideration of a new world, with a new Adam and Eve in a Universe where Christ has already become man. These humans face Satan’s temptation in the form of a man, while Ransom is sent to thwart the enemy’s schemes. It’s a curious sort of retelling of Paradise Lost, and had some interesting and dramatic moments to keep my attention, although overall I think it kind of fell flat for me.

That’s not to say it was a complete waste of time however. In particular, Lewis’ imaginative description of Satan’s temptations and the techniques he used to beguile the woman were suggestive, and similar to Screwtape Letters proved particularly insightful. Additionally, it’s still C.S. Lewis, who is a master of words, and there are so many tasty morsels to chew on and think over.

Highlights

He described us as being in a state of siege, as being, in fact, an enemy-occupied territory, held down by eldila who were at war both with us and with the eldila of “Deep Heaven,” or “space.” Like the bacteria on the microscopic level, so these co-inhabitating pests on the macroscopic permeate our whole life invisibly and are the real explanation of that fatal bent which is the main lesson of history (10)

To think that the specter you see is an illusion does not rob him of his terrors: it simply adds the further terror of madness itself - and then on top of that the horrible surmise that those whom the rest call mad have , all along, been the only people who see the world as it really is. (13)

I felt sure that the creature was what we call “good,” but I wasn’t sure whether I like “goodness” so much as I had supposed. This is a very terrible experience. As long as what your are afraid of is something evil, you may still hope that the good may come to your rescue. But suppose you struggle through to the good and find that is also dreadful? (19)

“Oh they’ll put all sorts of things into your head if you let them,” said Ransom lightly. “The best plan is to take no notice, and keep straight on. Don’t try to answer them. They like drawing you into an interminable argument.” (22)

What emerged was that in Ransom’s opinion the present functions and appetites of the body would disappear, not because they were atrophied but because they were, as he said, “engulfed.” He used the word “transsexual,” I remember, and began to hunt about for some similar words to apply to eating (after rejecting “trans-gastronomic”), and since he was not the only philologist present, that diverted the conversation into different channels. (37)

He had always disliked the people who encored a favorite air in an opera - “That just spoils it” had been his comment. But now this appeared to him as a principle far wider application and deeper moment. This itch to have things over again, as if life were a film that could be unrolled twice or even make to work backward… (57)

Money, in fact, would provide the means of saying encore in a voice that could not be disobeye (59)

It was strange that the utter loneliness through all these hours had not troubled him so much as one night of it on Malacandra. He though the difference lay in this, that the mere chance, or what he took for chance, had turned him adrift in Mars, but here he knew that he was part of a plan. He was no longer unattached, no longer on the outside. (60)

There was in her face an authority, in here caresses a condescension, which by taking seriously the inferiority of her adorers made them somehow less inferior - raised them from the status of pets to that of slaves. (79)

It was suddenly borne in upon him that her purity and peace were not, as they had seemed, things settled and inevitable like the purity and peace of an animal - that they were alive and therefor, breakable, a balance maintained by a mind and therefore, at least in theory, able to be lost. There is no reason why a man on a smooth road should lose his balance on a bicycle, but he could. There was no reason why she should step our of her happiness into the psychology of our own race; but neither was there any wall between to prevent her doing so. (83)

You could send your soul after the good you had expected, instead of turning it to the good you had got. You could refuse the real good; you could make the real fruit taste insipid by thinking of the other. (84)

Who thought of its being hard? The beasts would not think it hard if I told them to walk on their heads. It would become their delight to walk on their heads. I am His beast, and all His biddings are joys. It is not that which makes me thoughtful. But it was coming to my mind to wonder whether there are two kinds of bidding. (92)

It is the idea that humanity, having now sufficiently corrupted the planet where it arose, must at all costs contrive to seed itself over a larger area: that the vast astronomical distances which are God’s quarantine regulations, must somehow be overcome. This for a start. But beyond this lies the sweet poison of the false infinite - the wild dream that planet after planet, system after system, in the end galaxy after galaxy, can be forced to sustain, everywhere and for ever, the sort of life which is contained in the loins of our own species - a dream begotten by the hatred of death upon the fear of true immortality, fondled in secret by thousands of ignorant men and hundreds who are not ignorant. (100)

“I thought you religious people were all out for spirituality? What is the point of asceticism - fasts and celibacy and all that? Didn’t we agree that God is a spirit? Don’t you worship Him because he is pure spirit?” “Good heavens, no! We worship Him because HE is wise and good. There’s nothing specially fine about simply being a spirit. The Devil is a spirit.” (115)

He remembered his old suspicion that what was myth in one world might always be fact in some other. He wondered also whether the King and Queen of Perelandra, though doubtless the first human pair of this planet, might on the physical side have a marine ancestry. And if so, what then of the manlike things before men in our own world? Must they in truth have been the wistful brutalities whose pictures we see in popular books on evolution? Or were the old myths truer than the modern myths? (125)

“No, but He has never forbidden you to think about it. Might not that be one of the reasons why you are forbidden to do it - so that you may have a Might Be to think about, to make a Story about as we call it?” (128)

“And though there seemed to be, and indeed were, a thousand roads by which a man could walk through the world, there was not a single one which did not lead sooner or later either to the Beatific or the Miserific Vision. He himself had, of course, seen only a mask or faint adumbration of it; even so, he was not quite sure that he would live. (137)

“I think He made one law of that kind in order that there might be obedience. In all these other matters what you call obeying Hum is but doing what seems good in your own eyes also. Is love content with that? You do them, indeed, because they are His will, but not only because they are his will. Where can you taste the joy of obeying unless He bids you do something for which His bidding is the only reason? When we spoke last you said that if you told the beasts to walk on their heads they would delight to do so. So I know that you understand well what I am saying.” (146)

“Of course good came of it. Maleldil a beast that we can stop His path, or a lead that we can twist His shape? Whatever you do, He will make good of it. But not the good He had prepared for you if you had obeyed Him. That is lost forever. The first King and first Mother of our world did the forbidden thing, and He brought good of it in the end. But what they did was not good, and what they lost we have not seen. And there were some to whom no good came nor will ever come.” He turned to the body of Weston. “You,” he said, “tell her all. What good came to you? Do you rejoice that Maleldil became a man? Tell her of your joys, and of what profit you had when you made Maleldil and death acquainted.” (151)

If the attack had been of some more violent kind it might have been easier to resist. What chilled and almost cowed him was the union of malice with something nearly childish. For temptation, for blasphemy, for a whole battery of horrors, he was in some sort prepared: but hardly for this petty, indefatigable nagging as of a nasty little boy at a preparatory school. (153)

On the surface, great designs and an antagonism to Heaven which involved the fate of the worlds: but deep within, when every veil had been pierced, was there, after all, nothing but a black puerility, an aimless empty spitefulness content to sate itself with the tiniest cruelties, as love does not disdain the smallest kindness? What kept him steady, long after all possibility of thinking about something else had disappeared, was the decision that if he must hear either the word Ransom or the word Nothing a million times, he would prefer the word Ransom. (154)

The matter was, of course, cruelly complicated. What the Unman said was always very nearly true. (166)

The image of her beautiful body had been offered to her only as a means to awake the far more perilous image of her great soul. The external and, as it were, dramatic conception of the self was the enemy’s true aim. He was making her mind a theater in which that phantom self should hold the stage. He had already written the play. (173)

The fate of the world really depended on how they behaved in the next few hours. The thing was irreducibly, nakedly real. They could, if they chose, decline to save the innocence of this new race, and if they declined its innocence would not be saved. It rested with no other creature in all time or all space. This he saw clearly, though as yet he had no inkling of what he could do. (176)

Almost he felt that the words “would have happened” were meaningless mere invitations to wander in what the Lady would have called an “alongside world” which had no reality. Only the actual was real: and every actual situation was new. (181)

Before his Mother had borne him, before his ancestors had been called Ransoms, before ransom had been the name for a payment that delivers, before the world was made, all these things had so stood together in eternity that the very significance of the pattern at this point lay in their coming together in just this fashion. And he bowed his head and groaned and repined against his fate - to be still a man and yet to be forced up into the metaphysical world, to enact what philosophy only things. (184)

you might say that he had been delivered from the rhetoric of his passions and had emerged unto unassailable freedom. Ransom could not, for the life of him, see any difference between these two statements. Predestination and freedom were apparently identical. He could no longer see any meaning in the many arguments he had heard on this subject. (187)

There was no doubt a confusion of persons in damnation what Pantheists falsely hoped of Heaven bad mean really received in Hell. They were melted down into their Master, as a lead soldier slips down and loses his shape in the ladle held over the gas ring. The question whether Satan, or one whom Satan has digested, is acting on any given occasion, has in the long run no clear significance. (217)

And it appeared to Ransom that there might, if a man could find it, be some way to renew the old Pagan practice of propitiating the local gods of unknown placed in such a fashion that it was no offense to God Himself but only a prudent and courteous apology for trespass. (232)

It was a wound in his heel. (236)

“And then I saw what had happened in your world, and how your Mother fell and how your Father went with her, doing her no good thereby and bringing the darkness upon all their children. And then it was before me like a thing coming towards my hand… what I should do in like case. There I leaned of evil and good, of anguish and joy. (266)

Be comforted, small immortals. You are not the voice that all things utter, nor is there eternal silence in the places where you cannot come. (273)

Paul and the Resurrection of Israel

Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:35:00 +0000

Reading Paul as an ancient Jew, and not one of our tribe
Understanding that Israel encompasses all of the tribes
The problem with the law is that we don’t keep it
Implanted on our hearts is where we need it
The wrath of God revealed, not just against the gentiles
But Israel herself has gone astray and proven hostile
Torah can’t bring justice, but God himself sure does
Messiah make us righteous and empowers us to love
Israel is proven unfaithful, but God remains true
An unexpected salvation encompassing Gentiles too
Israel is cast away into the sea of the nations
God brings them back in via Gentile salvation
This is the Messiah’s work, the only faithful one
Israel pursues Torah vainly, because it’s already been done
But all who trust in hum and pledge their loyalty
Are sons by the Holy Spirit and heirs of royalty

This book is a goldmine of exegesis and Pauline theology. The tracing of Paul’s argument for Gentile inclusion as the means of restoring the still-yet-in-exile tribes of Israel is rock solid, but there is so much more in here worth chewing on. Whether or not you end up accepting everything he’s laying down, you have to come to terms with his detailed exegesis and coherent analytics of Paul’s thought.

Key Themes

Common Knowledge in Pauline Letters

Paul’s letters are dense and rely on shared knowledge that many modern readers lack. This can obscure the original meaning and intent behind Paul’s arguments.

Modern Interpretations of Paul’s Message

Staples critiques the modern tendency to view Paul through contemporary lenses. He argues that interpreting Paul’s gospel as focusing on inclusiveness and opposing racism reflects modern Western values rather than Paul’s original context. This approach can unintentionally reinforce anti-Jewish sentiments by casting Paul as a champion of modern liberal values against a supposedly regressive Jewish particularism.

Defining Israel

Staples discusses the challenge of defining who constitutes Israel. Terms like “ethnic” or “empirical” Israel are inadequate and fail to capture the issue’s complexity. The distinction between Jews and Israelites is nuanced, as shown by historical and current debates within Jewish communities.

Jews vs. Israelites

During the Second Temple period, a distinction existed between Jews (Ioudaioi) and Israelites. Staples notes that “Jews” typically referred to people from Judah, while “Israel” included the broader identity of the northern tribes. This distinction appears in various contexts, such as cultic or eschatological settings, where “Israel” is used to refer to the collective people, including non-Jewish northern tribes.

Significance of the Exile

The exile continued even after the return from Babylon. Staples cites the book of Daniel, which suggests that Israel’s true redemption is still in the future with the arrival of an “anointed one.” This perspective highlights the ongoing nature of Israel’s exile and the anticipation of future restoration.

Paul’s Approach to the Torah and New Covenant

Paul is not “law-free” but advocates for a “law-implanted” approach. He argues that true obedience to God requires a new heart and the indwelling of the sacred spirit, as promised in the new covenant. This transformation enables followers of the resurrected Messiah to genuinely fulfill the Torah’s requirements. Staples highlights Paul’s use of the distinction between the “letter” and the “Spirit” in 2 Corinthians 3, drawing parallels between Moses and Jesus as mediators of God’s promises.

Paul’s Inclusive Message

Paul’s message of inclusiveness is controversial because it extends the restoration promises to uncircumcised Gentiles who receive the spirit and become equal members of restored Israel. This inclusion challenges traditional boundaries and redefines the concept of Israel to encompass all transformed by the spirit.

Exile and Death

In ancient Mediterranean thought, exile and death were seen as equivalent, with exile often leading to death. This idea is evident in biblical narratives like the banishment of Adam and Eve from Eden and Cain’s punishment after killing Abel. Staples connects this concept to Paul’s argument that followers of the Messiah pass from under the Torah through death and resurrection, moving from an age of wrath to an age of favor.

Transformative Justification

Staples emphasizes that Paul’s view of justification is transformative. God does not change the standard of judgment but changes the person through the spirit, enabling them to fulfill the Torah’s requirements. This transformation is necessary for a person to be judged as righteous. Staples argues that this transformative view of justification is central to Paul’s message and differs from later Protestant interpretations that emphasize forensic declaration over transformation.

Israel and the Nations

Staples highlights the interconnectedness of Israel and the nations in Paul’s theology. He argues that Israel’s insensibility leads to mercy for the Gentiles, which in turn facilitates Israel’s redemption. This reciprocal relationship fulfills the promise of blessings for all nations through Israel’s restoration.

Role of the Messiah

Staples outlines various perspectives on the coming of the Messiah within Jewish tradition. Paul combines these views, suggesting that the Messiah came at the appointed time for an apostate people, bringing justification and repentance through his death and resurrection. The Messiah will return when Israel has been fully transformed by the spirit, fulfilling the eschatological promises.

Final Restoration

Staples explains that Israel’s destruction and dispersion among the nations are part of God’s hidden plan for vindication and victory. By incorporating Israel into the nations, God extends his claim to all peoples. This cosmic drama underscores the mystery of Israel’s salvation and the ultimate restoration of all things through the Messiah.

Notes and Quotes

Preface

…the Pauline letters involve highly compressed and allusive arguments that assume the readers share a great deal of foundational common knowledge - knowledge modern readers do not tend to share. (xiv)

Introduction: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites

Modern tendencies to read Paul in their own image are no different than earlier versions of the same.

It is also hardly mere coincidence that a group of Western scholars from the late twentieth century discovered that Paul’s gospel was really about inclusiveness and opposition to racism. “Inclusiveness” is, after all, arguably the highest virtue in postmodern Western culture. The New Perspective has therefor exchanged an antithesis more at home in the sixteenth century (merit/grace) for one better suited to the twenty-first century (racism/inclusiveness). By interpreting Paul’s message as the gospel of inclusiveness, Paul’s interpreters have once again looked down the deep well of history and seen their own faces reflected back at them. Moreover, by trading “legalism” for “ethnocentrism,” much New Perspective scholarship ironically and unfortunately represents a retreat to the anti-Jewish tendencies of pre-Schweitzer Pauline scholarship, effectively portraying Paul as the enlightened apostle of modern liberalism, embracing inclusive and progressive ideals over and against a regressive Jewish particularism. (5)

(footnote 34) That Paul includes former Gentiles as descendants of biblical Israel in 1 Cor. 10:1 is a significant problem for the idea that he sees them as incorporated into Abraham but not Israel. (9)

The problem of defining who is Israel isn’t is simple as many assume.

But merely adding “ethnic” or “empirical” to “Israel” does not solve the problem or provide clarity but rather begs the question. First of all, this language implies a scientifically verifiable or self-evident category such that it is clear who counts as Israel and who does not. (“Empirical” is, of course, a way to say “ethnic” while sidestepping the potentially problematic racial connotations of the latter term.) But ethnicity is neither empirical nor self-evident even in the modern world, as attested by the controversies over the decisions of the Israeli government denying aliyah (immigration to Israel) to self-identified Jews, many of whom have been approved as Jews by other Jewish groups. Empirically, what is the ethnic status of those received as Jews by Orthodox leaders in the diaspora but rejected as Jews by the nation of Israel? (15)

Such appeals to “ethnic Israel” therefore run into precisely the question of status Paul and his interlocutors are debating: Who counts as “in,” who counts as “out,” and who gets to determine the “Empirical” boundaries for the group? (18)

That we should not assume everything Paul writes would be immediately perceived by his audience.

Nevertheless, Paul did have a reputation for over-shooting the capabilities of his readers, as attested by 2 Pet. 3:15-16, and it is difficult to disagree with Robert Foster’s conclusion that “Paul writes … out of his own expertise and not on the basis of his reader’s competency.” That being the case, one must be careful not to limit the potential meaning of any passage to what one might reasonably expect an audience to have comprehended on first exposure to a given letter. Finally, the sophistication of second-generation works like Luke-Acts and 1 Clement is evidence of at least some readers sure capable of handling Paul’s rhetoric and use of scripture. (28)

1 - The God of Jews Only?

Quoting Josephus, on the distinction between Jew and Israelite:

when these Jews (Ioudaioi) learned of the king’s piety towards God, and his kindness towards Ezra, they loved [him] most dearly, and many took up their possessions and went to Babylon, desiring to go down to Jerusalem. But all the people of Israel remained in that land. So it came about that only two tribes came to Asia and Europe and are subject to the Romans, but th eten tribes are beyond the Euphrates until now and are a countless multitude whose number is impossible to know. (50)

While discussing that the exiled continued even after the return from Babylon:

The book of Daniel, for example, brushes over time time when Jerusalem is rebuilt “with streets and moat and in times of oppression” (9:25), declaring that the real fulfillment of Israel’s promised redemption would come centuries later, when an “anointed one, the prince” (Dan 9:25-26) would be “cut off” (cf. Isa 53:8), setting in motion the final restoration and the “end of the age of wrath” (Dan. 8:19, 11:36). (54-55)

Summary of the distinction being made:

The evidence therefore strongly indicates that the distinction between “Israel” and “the Jews” throughout the Second Temple period carries forward the distinction between Israel and Judah witnessed in the biblical texts, with Yehudi/Ioudaios ultimately meaning Judahite,” of which the English “Jew” is simply a shortened form. This pattern holds up with remarkable consistency across the extant evidence from the Second Temple period, wherein Ioudaios is consistently preferred (and Israel avoided) when referring to contemporary Jews, while that preference is reversed when (1) referring to the people of the biblical past, (2) in cultic or diachronic settings …, or (3) referring to eschatological Israel, including both Jews and northern Israelites. (58)

It bears emphasizing at this point in the study that I am not suggesting that “Israel” refers exclusively or even primarily to the so-called lost tribes (as some slanderously report - their condemnation is just) but rather that the term Israel is not limited to Jews and is preferred when the whole people, including the non-Jewish norther tribes, is in view. (63)

Many indications that Jesus had the Restoration of Israel fully in view in the gospels. Interesting note is the allusion to Zech. 2:6 “from the four winds” in Mark 13:27/Matt 24:31.

2 - Paul and the Israel Problem

On Deut 31:20-21 and the expectation of Israel’s disobedience:

The problem is not with the command but with the inclination of the people, and the command reveals that problem precisely buy “bringing about my death through what is good so that through the command sin would become utterly sinful” (Rom. 7:13). That is, since the Torah is good, the fact that the command resulted in death reveals the true source of that death - since dwelling in the “fleshly” inclination of those to whom the command was given, who are not only unable to keep the command but inclined to rebel against it. (88-89)

Paul is not “law-free” but “law-implanted”

He does not argue that his opponents’ Torah-keeping is the problem but rather that they do not in fact keep the Torah adequately, declaring that faithful obedience to YHWH requires the new heart and the indwelling sacred spirit granted to the followers of the resurrected Messiah. (90)

2 Cor 3 and the letter vs the Spirit

In the same way that Moses could not bring the people in to the promise but left that task to his successor Joshua (LXX: Iesous; “Jesus”), so now the “letter” cannot grant life (3:6) but rather gives way to the “ministry of the spirit” (3:8) administered by another Jesus, through whom the promise of life is granted. (92)

On the relationship of Exile and death:

The close relationship between death and exile established in these passages warrants further clarification. On an individual level, the punishments of death and banishment were typically treated as equivalent in the ancient Mediterranean world, mainly because a banished individual could customarily be killed with impunity and without pollution (e.g. Numbers 35:27), which is what necessitated flight from the land. A similar equivalency of death and exile is evident in the first pages of Genesis, where YHWH warns Adam, “on the day you eat from it you will die” (2:17). But when the humans doe eat from the tree, they are banished from the harden (3:22-24), signaling the essential equivalent of death and exile from the perspective of the author of the story. Then, when Cain murders his brother Abel, his punishment is banishment to be a wandered, though measures are taken to ensure that he is not fiar game to be killed by anyone who comes across him (4:12-15). (99)

How the followers of Messiah pass out from under Torah:

In Paul’s own words, “through Torah I died to Torah” (Gal 2:19). In the death of the messiah who fulfilled the Torah’s requirements to end the wrath brought about by disobedience to Torah (cf. Rom 4:15; 3:19-31), the Torah has come to it telos (Rom 10:4): the curse of death followed by the renewed life promised by the Torah itself. Those who have received the spirit are therefore no longer “under Torah but under favor” (Rom 6:14-15), having moved beyond the age of wrath into the age of favor. (103)

3 - The Israel Problem and the Gentiles

Romans 1:18-32 is not targeting Gentiles but all of Adam and Israel:

Rather than Rom 1:18-32 targeting “the pagan gentile world alone,” this passage weaves together the transgressions of Adam and Israel to indict all humanity - Israel and the nations alike - as under sin and therefore subject to the curse of death, an assessment then made explicit in Rom 2 and then again in Rom 3. (117)

After considering Rom 5:14 (not after the likeness of Adam’s sin) and 2:14 (do not have Torah):

In this light, it is all the more significant that Paul’s excoriation of impiety starts not from ignorance but from knowledge - a situation shared by Adam and Israel but not the stereotypical gentile, who is to a large degree a victim of ancestral sin resulting in the empty reasoning, foolishness, and depraved minds that ensure thet remain captive to sin and subject to death (Gal 4:8).

The people in view knew the just decrees of God:

Although this word (dikaiwma) can refer to “acts/requirements of justice” in a general sense, it is difficult to escape the biblical resonance of “dikaiwma of God” as referring to the revelation of those requirements in the Torah (e.g, Deut. 30:10, 16), especially since Paul uses it explicitly in that sense in Rom. 2:26 and 8:4. The next clause strengthens this resonance, as Paul specifies that the “dikaiwma of God” is “that those who do such things are worthy of death” (1:32). But idolatry, homosexual acts, and the rest of the vices Paul has just listed (excepting murder) were not capital offenses in gentile law codes, a fact that has led to significant difficulties as interpreters have (sometimes rather creatively) attempted to establish on what basis Paul could argue that these deeds are recognized as worthy of death. But once one recognizes that Rom 1:18-32 conflates the stories of Adam and Israel, that problem is moot, as both Adam and Israel are given specific commands that if violated will result in death. Specifically, Moses presents the choice between obeying and disobeying God’s statutes (dikaiwmata) as a choice between “life and death” (Deut 30:19), and those who know Torah are the ones who know that persons who do such things come under its curse, that is, death. (125)

The Gentiles being under sin is a given, and Paul’s exegetical argument loops both Israel and Adam under sin:

Unlike Wisdom, Paul is not making an empirical argument from natural law but rather an exegetical argument linking the rebellion of Adam and Israel, with all humanity subject to the ignorance, immorality, and death wrought by the disobedience of their forebears, who in each case did have access to special revelation. Moreover, as will be shown below, the argument of Rom 2 that “obedience to what the law requires is possible to those who do not know the law as such” is not (as is often assumed) the result of natural law among gentiles in the absence of special revelation. On the contrary, inasmuch as obedience requires the “work of the Torah written on the heart” (2:15), it is instead proof that such persons are indeed participants in the new covenant and therefor recipients of special revelation. (126)

The basic point - the inference signaled by the “therefore” - is that if one agrees with the preceding discourse, then no one stands aloof from God’s judgment. Specifically, those who know the Torah and were paying attention to the signals to Israel’s history in 1:18-32 know that Israel committed the same offenses and is therefore subject to the same wrath as the rest of the nations. Those who agree that such things are worthy of condemnation - that is, those who have received the Torah and agree with its judgments - are no less under God’s wrath than those from the nations. Indeed, the one who agrees with the Torah is self-condemned because the Torah condemns its hearers and declares that its own function is to be a “witness against you” (Deut 31:26). (134)

On Rom 2:6 within Pauline corpus:

Such emphasis on judgment based on works is by no means out of character for Paul. ON the contrary, Paul’s thinking is dominated by the impeding eschatological judgment in which God will finally mete out justice based on what people deserve. This theme of God’s judgment is so foundational that it appears in every undisputed letter except Philemon, being significantly more pervasive in that respect than justification by faith. A few examples should suffice to show that the view of judgment in Romans 2 is by no means outside of the Pauline norm: …2 Cor 5:10-11… …Gal 5:21… …1 Cor 6:9a… …Gal 6:7… …1 Cor 3:13…. …Phil 2:14-16… …Rom 14:10,12…

4 - Salvation through Justification: Jews and Gentiles Alike

God’s mercy achieved, not by changing the standard but by changing the person:

In this framework [the new covenant promises], God’s mercy does not involve changing the standard of judgment. That is, rather than unjustly judging the unjust to be just, God will transform the unjust into “doers of Torah” who can then be justly judged “just before God” (2:13). Rather than eliminating Torah, God will transform people, and these justified people will obey God, having been given the fidelity needed to fulfill Torah. (146)

He definitely takes a transformative view of justification, but the question remains whether the focus here is on “final justification” in the eschaton and whether there is place for a forensic declaration in the present.

What makes Paul’s restoration teaching controversial was that…

Paul takes the additional step of arguing that the restoration promises to Israel also apply to uncircumcised gentiles who can (and do) receive the spirit, thereby becoming equal members in restored Israel’s new covenant….The first argument in Romans for the inclusions of gentiles without physical circumcision rests on an extension of the new covenant promise to gentiles who then do the things the Torah requires, which will result in a good judgment “on the day when God will just the hidden things of humans according to my gospel through Messiah Jesus” (2:16). (150)

The hidden Jew:

Those approved (that is, recognized as covenantal members) by humans due to what is externally visible are not necessarily those who truly belong to YHWH, who judges “the hidden things of humans” (c.f. Rom 2:16). That is, while physical circumcision may result in human praise and acceptance by those who can only see what is external, “God knows who are his and who are sacred” (Num 16:5). For this reason, Paul elsewhere exhorts, “Do not judge before the time until the Lord comes, who will bring to light the hidden things.. of darkness and revieal…the purposes of the hearts, and then approval… will come to each person from God” (1 Cor 4:5). (170)

The new covenant promise of justification…

Moses and the prophets do not promise that God will save the the unjust by declaring them to be just despite their continued injustice, eliminating his just statutes and rewarding the unjust as though they were just. On the contrary, they promise that God will make the unjust just, giving them the desire and capacity to do the justice he requires. That is, as Deut 30:6 promises, “YHWH your God will circumcise your heart … to love YHWH your God with all your heart and all your soul so that you may live.” The promise is that God will change the heart so that the people will fulfill the love command, which is identified with the “just statutes” in Deut 30:10, 16. The consequence of fulfilling the love command as a result of that heart circumcision will be life - the very thing Paul says is the outcome of fulfilling the “just statutes of the Torah” (2:25)…. …Rather than arguing against the principle of retributive justice or the need for works for a good judgment, Paul is instead addressing what one might call the paradox of justification: a person cannot become just though the works of Torah because only a just person will properly fulfill the just things of the Torah - that is, the love commands. (177)

In other words, the life-giving Spirit transforms a person from unjust into just, thus becoming the people who are able to love God and neighbor and live.

The fact that it is by God’s grace does not mean there is not human effort… herein is a decidedly non-Protestant reading of justification…

When Paul argues such justness can only come through God’s grace, this is not over and against desert or the need for works, nor does he ever argue that a person is saved “by faith alone.” Instead, “in Messiah Jesus, neither circumcision nor foreskin matters, only fidelity working through love” (Gal. 5:6). That is, fidelity must be worked out (the “justified” person must do justice), and God’s grace is what brings transformation, empowering and motivating the works of justice necessary for a good judgment justly based on works. …For Paul, justification amounts to the forgiveness of past sins, freedom from the human propensity to sin (slavery to the power of sin), and the power to obey God fully. (178)

He also clearly emphasizes that we should not conflate justification with salvation.

5 - “Not My People”: Israel’s Infidelity and God’s Fidelity

That Israel’s redemption would not include everyone descended from Israel was not controversial, and it is unclear why Paul should be expected to differ from his contemporaries in this respect. (186)

Romans 9-11 aim to explain: 1) Why uncircumcised gentiles are included at all, 2) why the restoration of the 12 tribes seems to not be happening

Put together, the problem Paul must explain is how his gospel - including the counterintuitive incorporation of gentiles - fulfills the promises of Israel’s redemption despite not looking like Israel’s restoration. In light of the apparent absence of Israel’s restoration combined with gentile reception of the spirit the prophets promised to Israel and Judah, Paul must defend against the charge that God has been unfaithful to his promises to Israel. (187)

Paul argues that God has in fact been over-faithful, going so far as to extend redemption to the gentiles as a means to fulfill his word and redeem “all Israel” (11:26). Thus, throughout Rom 9-11, Paul attempts to explain why gentiles are partaking in the promises associated with Israel’s redemption - and how that redemption will ultimately be fulfilled - from the larger perspective of Israel’s story, arguing for the interdependence of gentile incorporation and Israel’s salvation. (187)

On the potter/clay analogy:

The fundamental lesson of the potter and clay analogy is not that God works arbitrarily but rather that although God ultimately decides the fate of humans and nations, those decisions are contingent on his interactions with human beings who can and do resist his will. (198)

By definition, patience/longsuffering implies not getting one’s own way, and the implication of the analogy is that is anyone resists God’s initial plan, God will patiently find another way for that person or nation to serve God’s larger, overarching purpose in history. But such reshapings, although still ultimately serving God’s purposes, may not result in the most honorable outcome for that individual vessel. (199)

What are vessels of wrath? Instrumental - God works wrath through the vessels…

In keeping with the larger metaphor, it is more likely that a potter would make vessels to serve a useful function rather than solely for the purpose of immediately destroying them. This reading also fits with the material in 9:6-18, in which Pharoah, Ishmael, and Esau are all persecutors used by God for redemptive purposes.

Quoting Munck:

In this connection, a peculiar feature of Paul’s though in Romans 9-11 may be noted, namely that none of the participants in Helsgeschichte are saved or lost for themselves alone. The hardening of the one has as its redemptive motive the salvation of the other, and again, the salvation of the other leads to the salvation of the first after all. (201)

Not my people becoming my people…

In this larger context, the point of this conclusion is precisely that God is now calling vessels of mercy from the nations among which Israel was sown (Zech 10:9; cf. Hos 2:23), with these previously dishonored vessels being redeemed and transformed into instruments of God’s mercy and being used for God’s purpose of transforming the world through his people after all. (204)

As he already hinted as far back as Rom 2, Paul takes the radical step of identifying uncircumcised Gentiles who “manifest the work of the Torah written on their hearts” as members of new covenant Israel. They are the “not my people” being re-adopted like Hosea promised to northern Israel, which would be scattered, mixed, and absorbed in the nations before God showed them mercy once again. Paul therefore applies Hosea’s promise to gentiles not in a secondary or typological sense but as a necessary part of the promised redemption of once-rejected Israel. That is, for Hosea’s promise to be fulfilled, “not my people” (=gentiles) must be transformed into “my people” (=Israel). (206)

6 - God’s Justice and the End of the Torah

Paul is participating in an established early Jewish debate about the relationship between Israel’s obedience and redemption. Paul does agree that Israel’s redemption depends on Israel’s justness; without repentance, there will be no return. The debate has to do with the source and nature of that repentance and justification. The question is whether Israel must become sufficiently righteous/just to bring the messiah or whether the messiah will come to make Israel sufficiently just. Paul takes the latter view. (236)

For categories of opinions regarding the coming Messiah: 1) Once Israel repents and is adequately just 2) When Israel is completely apostate 3) At an appointed time, irrespective of Israel’s justness

A fourth opinion attributed to R. Joshua b Levi instead suggests that the manner of the messiah’s coming will depend on whether Israel is righteous or not: “If they have merit, it will be ‘with clouds of heaven’ [Dan 7:13], but if they do not have merit, it will be ‘lowly and riding on an ass’ [Zech 9:7]” (b. Sanh. 98a). Paul’s position essentially combines all four options: the messiah came at the appointed time (Gal 4:4, Rom 5:6) for an apostate and unjust people (Rom 1-3), and the humble manner of his coming was in accord with Israel’s impiety and injustice. He came the first time to bring justification and repentance through his death and resurrection, and he will return in the clouds (1 Thess 4:17) when Israel has been fully transformed and justified by the Spirit. (237)

Deut 30:12-14 in Romans 9 -

The relationship between these verses - the promise to the doer of Torah and Jesus’ resurrection from the death - suggests that Paul reads Lev 18:5b as a messianic prophecy in which “the human who does these things will live by them” refers to one person who will attain (eternal) life through properly fulfilling the requirements of the Torah. (243-244)

In seems that the reading of Romans 10 proposed in 243-246 definitely coheres with a form of imputation of righteousness in which the Messiah’s obedience is considered Torah fulfillment for those who trust him.

On Jesus fulfilling Habakkuk:

In light of this evidence and the relationship between the quotation in Rom 1:17 and the preceding verses, the most reasonable conclusion is that Paul undertands Jesus’ resurrection as the fulfillment of Habakkuk’s prophetic promise of resurrection to “the just one.” The opening of the letter therefore establishes that in Paul’s gospel, the “justness of God”… is revealed through the resurrection of God’s son, Jesus (Israel’s) Messiah, who has been made “Lord” and to whom all the nations owe their obedience (1:4-5). In this context, the resurrection serves as the confirmation that Jesus is in fact the deliverer of Habakkuk’s vision, having come as promised to rectify the injustice about which the prophet was complaining. (251)

The point of [Galatians 3:12] is that although the Torah did not arise from fidelity, it yet promises life to “the one who does these things” - that is, “the just one” already mentioned in the quotation of Hab 2:4 in the previous verse. The function of citing Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 together is therefore not that the fidelity spoken of by Habakkuk invalidates the Torah’s promise of life to the doer, nor that, as some have suggested, Paul understands “doing” as incompatible with “faith.” instead, as is also the case in Rom 10, the argument is about the source of justification and deliverance from the Torah’s curse. Rather than citing Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 as a scriptural contradiction, Paul cites them as concurring witnesses to the messiah to whom life is promised. Together they provide the witness of the Torah and Prophets to the resurrection of the “the just one” whose fidelity enabled him to “do these things” and receive (resurrection) life, resulting in the dispensation of the spirit to all of God’s people. (261)

The loyalty pledge:

The confession that “Jesus is Lord” therefor serves as a public embrace of a new identity, an official acknowledgement of Jesus’ authority and a commitment to submit to that authority - that is to live according to Jesus’ teachings and mediated via the spirit. Now the initiate into the messianic ekklesia can be expected to uphold the norms of this new group and - as evident in 1 Cor 5 - may be punished accordingly. (266)

7 - The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation

Because Israel was scattered among - and assimilated by - the nations, Israel’s salvation paradoxically depends on salvation coming to the gentiles (11:11), and like a master potter, God has used Israel’s misstep not for destruction but to accomplish the very purpose for which Israel was chosen in the first place: riches for the world (11:12) and the blessing of Abraham for all nations (Gal 3:14). (282)

The remnant is not complete, but is contingent on fidelity:

As such, the present remnant (cf. 11:5) - that is, those who presently stand within the faithful community and would be saved if the judgment were today - is not identical to the final remnant that will be saved at the eschatological judgment. Instead, the remnant is still under construction, subject to continued expansion, growth, and further pruning until it reaches its fulness. Nevertheless, Paul does not suggest that all broken branches will be reincorporated, only that they can be reincorporated. (300)

Paul’s phrase of the “fulness of the nations” is in reference to Gen 48:19 and Ephraim’s blessing.

Just as the fates of Israel and Judah are interconnected, because of Israel’s disobedience, the fates of Israel and the nations have become interconnected. Israel’s insensibility was the means of mercy towards the gentiles, and that mercy toward the gentiles is in turn the means of Israel’s own redemption. To save Ephraim, gentiles are saved, and by saving “the fullness of nation,” Ephraim is redeemed. Israel’s redemption is the redemption of the cosmos. (317)

8 - The End of the Matter

Paul adds a surprising twist to this cosmic drama: rather than marking YHWH’s defeat, Israel’s destruction as a nation and mixture among the nations is part of the mystery, the hidden plan of YHWH’s vindication and victory. By unjustly crossing their spheres of authority, tearing Israel apart and incorporating Israel within their own peoples, the rules of the nations have given YHWH claim to all the nations. That is, since YHWH has claim to Israel and Israel has been mixed among, YHWH now has claim to all the nations into which Israel has been mixed (328).

Why is Paul against circumcision?

Requiring physical circumcision would imply that what is truly efficacious for creating Israelites is the work of human hands rather than the work of God. Moreover, if those who are already circumcised still need the Spirit for their circumcision and participation in the covenant to be valid, requiring those who already have the spirit to validate their reception of the spirit by being physically circumcised is an absurdity (338).

In light of the Genesis narrative to which Paul refers here, the same principle established in Gal 3:19 applies: circumcision was added due to the episode of infidelity that occurs between the promise in Gen 15 and the revised covenant in gen 17, namely Abraham’s infidelity (lack of trust that God could provide an heir otherwise) and injustice toward Hagar.

Mansfield Park

Sat, 15 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Orphaned at 9, but only in practice
Adopted into luxury and good habit
We’ll teach her well but she’ll know her place
Perhaps we’ll keep her from being a disgrace

Character matters, and so possibly good breeding
Which matters more, to see we’ll keep reading
Marriage, money, loyalty, and society
The obligations of love, and concerns of propriety

You’ll spend your life being told you’re second rate
I’ll be surprised you’re not bold and so hesitate
You’ll sit back, and quietly observe
I’ll rush in and get what I deserve

A kindness first shown, and never to be forgotten
A relationship grows, and friendship blossoms
Into love from the one and love from another
Two loves as distant as husband and brother

Now come the years of weddings and bliss
Sisters all ready and don’t want to be missed
One unhappily found, the other amiss
The playboy makes his round, bringing a twist

Would Shakespeare approve of lover’s vows
Probably, but this will stir quite a row
Using the play to play a forbidden part
While some play games with delicate hearts

Some stand on principal, others concede,
Some see no problem or have any need
To consider propriety in an innocent game
Or a father’s will, since he’s gone all the same

If he lingers a while, and seed becomes fruit
A small scandal may prevent a bigger taking root
But more likely than not, after the dust has settled
Broken hearts would remain, and a rose without petals

Nonetheless, he returns, and puts an end to the fun
The abrupt ending results in a marriage for one
And now the player looks to the field for his prey
And settles upon one who sits above the fray

He stalks and he toys, and stomps and claps
But in the end he is caught, snared by his own trap
Deeply in love, but with someone who hates him
A game now a goal, she’ll be someone who mates him

Think of the society, fortune, and honor he brings
Think of character, fortitude, and worthiness she sings
One can’t help but think she’s being a little too rude
It seems he’s truly fallen, but is faced with a prude

Some won’t marry up, but will some marry down
This question persists through scene change and town
Could love be more stronger than connections and wealth
Could marriage to the Church be the key to good health

The two lovers’ destinies are not unrelated
And the question for both, though often unstated
Is one of constancy to the calling before you
Whether to love, or to that which you hold most true

Graciously, in the end, wisdom’s children shine forth
The true characters of all are manifest in due course
Though heartache and pain are the roads often taken
True felicity’s Face can never be mistaken.

James 5:13-20 - Persevering in Prayer

Tue, 21 May 2024 13:35:00 +0000

James 5:13-20 ESV
Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit.

My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

A response for every situation (when to pray)

The troubled/afflicted -> pray
The cheerful -> sing praise (pray in song)
The sick -> elders pray and anoint Prayer in faith:
they will be healed and restored
sins will be forgiven Therefore:
confess sins
pray So that you will be healed.
Turning a sinner from their ways can save them from death and cover sins.

Prayer of a righteous person is powerful - consider Elijah

Suffering

We should pray for our circumstances, both hard and easy (v13)
- Suffering here is very broad in meaning - toiling under difficulty or misfortune
- What is the alternative temptation in times of difficulty?
  - Instead of praying we become cynical or disheartened.
  - We may look to other means and possibly compromise to solve our problems.
  - We are more susceptible to temptations to sin
- Consider Hezekiah when faced with the Assyrian invasion - 2 Kings 19:14-19
- Adversity is very often where the fruits of the Spirit, in particular our love and faithful patience, are formed. Our prayers should reflect those priorities.
  - There’s certainly nothing wrong with the desire and the prayer to be delivered from sufferings, but sometimes the answer is no because this is the very thing that is best for your spiritual growth at this time. Our prayers should take that into account, seeking to grow more and more into the likeness of Jesus.
    Smiling
What is the alternative temptation in times of joy?
- When things are going well, we’re tempting to forget the one to whom we all every good gift.
- It’s easy to become conceited and view yourself as self-made, earning your current success
- “Times of joy might have invoked complacency, but James argues that because joy is a blessing of God, gratitude to Him should be shown. Such gratitude is channeled to God through praise (cf. Col. 3:16). This joy will cause a negation of envy and promote a shared cheerfulness with the entire community.” (Easter)
Consider Hannah’s song after her prayers for a son were heard - 1 Samuel 2:1-10
Are the two conditions here necessarily mutually exclusive? c.f. Paul and Silas in Acts 16:25
Sick
We should pray for the sick (v14-18)
- The elders of the church have a particular responsibility to prayer for those under their care
  - In effect the elders are acting out the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2 - bringing the man to Jesus for healing and forgiveness.
- We have a situation here where, in effect, someone is very weak or sick (it could be spiritual or physical or both) and they are not sufficient to pray for themselves alone, they need the faithful shepherds of the flock to come and intercede with them.
  - What’s the intent of anointing with oil here and elsewhere in scripture?
    - Medicinal - the oil is a form of medicine in the first century, used in a variety of contexts (Luke 10:34). Some have argued that this passage is indicative that we should use the best medicine available in combination with prayer when dealing with sickness.
    - Sacramental - the oil is a vehicle for God’s power. Eventually, the Roman Catholics would use this passage in support of the priests giving extreme unction to the dying.
    - Symbolic - the oil sets apart the anointed for God’s special attention, or is a visible symbol of God’s care of the person (Exod 28: 41; Luke 4: 18; Acts 4: 27; 10: 38; 2 Cor 1: 21; Heb 1: 9) Regardless of the exact intention of the oil, the passage is clear that it is the “prayer of faith” and the Lord who does the healing here.
- The language here is very direct - “And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up.” How should we handle when we pray and we don’t seem to get an answer/healing? How does that fit with the seemingly blanket promise in this passage?
  - Does it mean we didn’t pray in faith? (sometimes)
  - The broader witness of the new testament is that healing is not always expected for sickness:
    - c.f. 2 Cor. 12:8-10; 1 Tim. 5:23; 2 Tim. 4:20
    - Consider also that the end of the road for each of us is death, which means there will eventually be an illness that we’re not going to healed from except by resurrection
  - Ultimately, our prayers have to always be understood to be contingent on the wise sovereignty of God, who we can trust to always do right. This does mean that it doesn’t matter whether we pray or not, or that we should always be hedging our prayers - the Bible is clear that God hears and heeds our prayers and that there are things that happen in the world in response to our prayers that would not happen had we not prayed. Our prayer is a vessel in God’s sovereign hand, but that’s not the same as a fatalistic “whatever will be will be.” We should pray boldly and in faith, believing that God hears, is able, and is willing to answer. If that prayer is answered with a “no,” that’s an answer we can receive with trust in our Father, but that’s not the same as praying with the expectation that there’s a “no” coming. The “prayer of faith” means praying and truly believing and expecting that God can and will bring about this healing. God has shown himself frequently willing to respond to such prayers with healing.
    Sinning
v15 - What is the connection with forgiveness of sins and healing here?
- Is ever right to say that a sickness is due to sin? (Yes - 1 Cor. 11:30)
- Is sickness always due to accompanied by specific sins? (No - John 9)
v16 - Likewise, given the connection of sin and sickness, as a community we should confess our sins to one another and pray for one another to be forgiven/healed. A couple facets for looking at this passage:
- The community James was writing to clearly had issues with sin and division, and was very much in need of healing. In this sense, the principle of prayer for the sick is taken by James and applies to the spiritual sick community at large. In effect, he’s saying “You’re sick and in need of prayer, healing, and forgiveness.”
- Sin within the community can affect the efficacy of our prayers (1 Pet. 3:7), and so we should habitually be dealing with it.
- In order to be people who are able to offer “the prayer of a righteous person”, we must walk as righteous people. To be walking as righteous people requires regular confession of sin and prayer for one another. The effectiveness of our healing ministry is contingent on our pursuit of righteousness.
  Elijah
  
  Now the example of Elijah, who is a man with like passions as us
- Why the specific example of Elijah here vs other examples of answered prayer (e.g. the widow’s son)?
  - The patience faithful patience required of Elijah in this case, ties back with the faithful endurance of Job
  - Tying together the imagery of rain and fruitfulness from James 5:7ff
    Assumptions/Declarations in this passage
The Lord hears our prayers, and works in response to them
There is sometimes a connection between our sins and our sicknesses, and prayer can bring healing to both
A righteous person’s prayer is effective

Straying

v19-20 - Connecting closely with the question of sin and forgiveness, and dependent on prayer as well, is the issue of restoring a brother or sister who has gone astray from the truth.
- Even greater than the miracle of healing from sickness is the saving of this wayward soul from death

Mother's Day

Sun, 12 May 2024 00:00:00 +0000

A mother’s love is a deep fountain
Continually filled from above
She showers blessing beyond counting
And shows us the meaning of love

Often without thanks but always with grace
She plans and works to care and provide
She may not always have a smile on her face
But she takes the hard knocks in stride

From baby diapers to grown-up complaints
The family depends on her street smarts
Her husband knows without her he’d faint
And treasures her with all his heart.

Crouch, The Life We're Looking For

Sat, 20 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0000

This is an outstanding book, and one that I think every person in our society could benefit from slowly reading, pondering, and reflecting in light of their own experience. Crouch’s exposition of the problem we find ourselves in (Ch. 1-6) is the best I’ve read in its simply clarity and penetrating insight. Some of his recommendations for redemption (Ch. 8-11) may be a little far-fetched, but he offers some nice vignettes into the possibilities of rethinking the way we engage technology and other people. I especially appreciated the device vs instrument distinction in Chapter 9.

Chapter 1 - What we thought we wanted: The loneliness of a personalized world

After framing the discussion around the newborn’s instinctive search for faces to focus on, and the critical role personal faces play in our development, Crouch discusses the role of technology in simultaneously increasing personalization in every aspect of lie while also creating an epidemic of loneliness.
In a society that has succumbed to the impersonal, our deepest desire is personhood - both to encounter it and to have it recognized in us.
The meetings of the early Christians will be instructive in knowing how we can reclaim this.

Recognition is the primary task of infancy. (1)

Is it coincidence, or just a kind of grand irony, that loneliness has spiked just as our media became “social”, our technology became “personal,” and our machines learned to recognize our faces (12)

Chapter 2 - Heart, Soul, Mind, Strength: What we’ve forgotten about being a person

In our crowded deserts, we often lose sight of the fact that every person we encounter is an image bearer and a person, and taking a moment to contemplate it is impactful.
Personhood cannot be taken away from us, although we can often be treated as less than persons.
A great exposition of the Shema to draw out the nature of our humanity:
- Heart -> driven by passion and sincerity
- Soul -> a depth of being that us uniquely “us”
- Mind -> Capable of thinking and reasoning and evaluating our world, reflecting
- Strength -> Our “moreness,” both physical and otherwise, putting our all in We are born with these and exercise them but as we grow, we experience alienation and seek for ways to make up for that sense of loss of recognition of our personhood.

As long as you have been and as long as you will be, you are a person… while nothing can truly take away our personhood, only another person can fully give it to us… It is when another person’s face and voice recognizes us, not for what we can offer them (exploitation) but for what we intrinsically are (contemplation), that we know who we are…” (29)

Love calls out the best in us - it awakens our hearts, it stirs up the depths of our souls, it focuses our minds, it arouses our bodies to action and passion… Of all the creatures on earth, we are by far the most dependent, the most relational, the most social, and the most capable of care. When we love, we are most fully and distinctively ourselves. (35)

Chapter 3 - The superpower zone: How we trade personal growth for effortless power

Contrasting the experience of being in the zone vs tech-enabled superpower. One is energizing and fulfilling, the other draining and disappointing.
Using the analogy of athletes who focus on a particular area of their body and end up with serious deficiencies, so also we have a tendency to atrophy so many areas of our soul because we have traded in the exercise for cheap superpowers.
Note: This is the quintessential modern problem, which is accelerated and exacerbated in our hyper-digital age. In effect, what we’re experiencing now is the mental and social form of depletion through technology advance that earlier generations experienced with respect to physical labor and transportation. Perhaps because we didn’t appreciate that a good part of the value of a trip is the journey, we have sold our birthright for a cup of porridge. I’m reminded of my initial reactions to the idea of self-driving cars - while the idea of a long commute that could be productively spent focusing on something else was appealing for me, I just couldn’t shake the feeling that I’m losing something in the process, some part of me that enjoys driving. I think this holds with any number of our advances that “save time” or “automate the process.” Search engines reduce the need to read and research or to memorize. ChatGPT-like technologies may just help alleviate the need to learn or problem solve at all, but to what cost? Certainly, the answer cannot be no technology, since it is a tool at our disposal to further human flourishing. More and more, I think the Amish have the right idea, even if I differ on the decisions they’ve made - what are the ways this technology will impact us? Based on the answer to that question, we can decide whether it’s something the community should adopt. It’s interesting to think through examples in my life that abound illustrating this principle. Bible software, which puts a searchable, indexed library of resources at my fingertips - the promise was that it would supercharge my Bible study efforts, but the reality is I don’t think I have nearly as much depth of thought and slow meditation on a passage and its difficulties as I did when it was a more manual process. I’m sure not everyone’s experience is the same, but it certainly feels that way for me. The hyper-media age has removed some of the human experience of such activities as watching live sports, or going to the video store to pick a movie for the weekend. While I realize that even these things are a technological leap from the generation before, it’s one I can point to that I received eagerly but upon reflection lament the personal element that was lost.

Chapter 4 - Modern Magic: The ancient roots of our Tech Obsession

Modern technologists are carrying forward the work of the ancient alchemists. The goal is not to understand the world but to control it, and in the process to achieve god-like qualities.
The promise is the same and it’s equally as delusional.
The alchemists set to conjure spirits to aid them in their quest but the spirits never tend to follow orders.
The dream for this power is so strong that we’re willing to treat people as machines in order to achieve it.

Quoting Arthur C. Clark -

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” (60)

The alchemists considered themselves to be performing magic - not in the sense of impressive or charming tricks but in the sense of unlocking and acquiring the ability to command nature. (66)

It’s amazing how often Clarke’s dictum is quoted with unironic reverence, as a genuine guide to the direction that the human race should go. In fact, anyone who really understood the distorting history of magic - its tendency to displace God, its quest to enslave nature, its recurring obsession with fashioning beings to serve the magician, and above all its stunningly consistent failure to actually deliver on its promises - would hope that a sufficiently advanced technology would be readily distinguishable from magic. (69)

Chapter 5 - Money and Mammon: How Impersonal Power Rules Our World

Money, and the power that comes with it, encompassed by the word Mammon, is the functional fulfillment of the alchemists dream. Without relationship, without dependence, and without effort, I can bend the world to my will.
Mammon was perceived by the early church as the demonic force behind money and power. This is perceptive, as it is the anti-God and drives us further from human flourishing.
Technology is fundamentally in service of Mammon. It is commercial profit that drives the direction of technology change and human flourishing, when it happens, is a happy side effect but hardly necessary. Technology/Mammon will pursue what it wants regardless.
The alternative is to pursue technology that emphasizes relationships, interdependence, and cultivation of human persons.

Chapter 6 - Boring Robots: Why the next tech revolution will succeed (and fail)

New technologies arrive, and they do change things, but in the end they don’t really change things. They become boring and become part of the background of our lives, which are still fundamentally human. This reality is most apparent by looking to the past and considering the present from their perspective. We are fundamentally unchanged, although many side effects are introduced in the process. The future we fear, where we are integrated into machines, is already basically here.
Great observation that truly autonomous machines require machine-like environments, and the more conditions are optimal for humanity, the more difficult they are for autonomous machines.
The push by mammon will be to create more inhospitable spaces for autonomous machines, removing elements of personhood from our lives.
The dirty little secret in many amazing tech companies is that they are only able to do their work on the backs of thousands of human beings. Even artificial intelligence like OpenAI has had to pay tens of thousands of Africans to moderate the disgusting stuff its models generate. Crouch talks about the social media moderators as the garbage collectors of our digital age.
The humans driving these systems are often treated like robots.

Speaking of how a great-great grandparent would be awestruck by the technology we take for granted today (dishwasher, robot vacuum) and assume life is leisure-filled.

It would be so deflating to tell my ancestor the truth: Robots have arrived, and I am no more fulfilled. I am quite happy to have a dishwasher, but having one has not change me in notable ways. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if not having one would have had a more significant effect… Robots, it turns out, are amazing - but only before they arrive. (90-91)

We speculate about future ‘cyborgs’, organic beings enmeshed in digital systems, without realizing that in all the most important ways, we already are cyborgs… The boosters of a future singularity urge us to cast the next spell, while the detractors warn us about its dire consequences. But the spell that really counts has been cast. The singularity, such as it is, has already arrived. (93-94)

Maybe instead of trying to reengineer human cognition in silicon… we will realize it is far more cost effective to achieve our desired end of increasing the supply of available intelligence, to simply… make babies. (99)

Peer behind the curtain of any quasi-magical technology, and you find toil. (108)

Chapter 7 - Intermission: The Body of the Messiah in the Emperor’s Court

Contrasting the very impersonal and slave-driven Romans world, with the community of Christians we find represented in Paul’s letter, including his scribe taking dictation - a man named Tertius (third), indicating his insignificance, and Phoebe, who had the honor of bringing Paul’s letter to the Romans.

Chapter 8 - Existing the Empire: Redemptive Moves for an Impersonal Age

Just as the early Christians were subjects of the Romans Empire, today we’re are all subjects of a larger empire called Mammon.
The world is obsessed with making an impact - a force that brings about radical change rapidly. The example of Jesus and the Christians is about patient influence over a long period of time. Today’s magical devices wear out in a year or two and end up in a landfill. We are called to be like the olive trees of the middle east that take 8 years before bearing fruit and lives for thousands of years.

Chapter 9 - From Devices to Instruments: Truly Personal Technology

Technology offers benefits with tradeoffs:
- Now you’ll be able to … <-> Now you’ll have to …
- Now you won’t have to … <-> Now you won’t be able to …
Distinguishing between devices and instruments. Devices facilitate the benefits with varying degrees of the tradeoffs, instruments generally offer the benefits w/o adding much in the way of the tradeoffs.
There may be no going back, but can we rethink going forward to focus on solving human problems, and fostering relationship and creative outlets.

Chapter 10 - From Family to Household: Living Together as Persons

Households are the fundamental community
Not simply family because common place is critical and it may include non-family. Do you have people who know you day to day on an intimate level.
Not simply living together but sharing responsibility and fellowship.

You are part of a household if there is someone who knows where you are today and who as at least some sense of how it feels to be where you are. You are part of a household if there is someone who moves more quietly when they know you are asleep. You are part of a household if someone would check on you if you did not awaken. (153 - and much more beyond on 154)

Chapter 11 - From Charmed to Blessed: The Community of the Unuseful

Charmed - everything goes well and no problems from a health or prosperity view
Blessed - The deep joy of communion w/ God and others in the midst of suffering
Forming communities where we don’t sideline those who cannot contribute economically may help us to be more robust, truly blessed and truly human.

Application

Reflect on Personal Technology Use: Consider how your use of technology might be contributing to a sense of loneliness or impersonality in your life. Reflect on the device vs. instrument distinction and evaluate your gadgets and apps to determine whether they serve as tools for genuine human flourishing or merely as devices that isolate.
Cultivate Deep Relationships: Prioritize face-to-face interactions and cultivate deep, meaningful relationships. Engage in practices that recognize and affirm the personhood in others, such as active listening and presence.
Embrace the Fullness of Personhood: Reflect on the Shema (heart, soul, mind, strength) as a framework for understanding and embracing the fullness of your own personhood. Consider areas of your life where you might be neglecting aspects of your being and seek to engage more fully in practices that nurture your whole self.
Evaluate Technology’s Role in Your Life: Thoughtfully consider the impact of technology on your life and community. Are there ways in which technology has made your life more impersonal? How might you use technology in a way that enhances rather than detracts from human connection?
Reclaim the Human Experience: Engage in activities that are inherently human and resist the outsourcing of these experiences to technology. This might include manual tasks, creative endeavors, or simply spending time in nature.
Form or Strengthen Your Household: Reflect on the concept of household beyond the nuclear family. Consider ways to foster a sense of belonging, responsibility, and mutual care with those you live with or in your immediate community.
Community Engagement: Engage in community life with an emphasis on relationships and interdependence. Look for opportunities to contribute to your community in ways that recognize and affirm the personhood of others, especially those who are often marginalized.
Spiritual Reflection and Practice: Reflect on the spiritual dimensions of technology and personhood. Consider practices that help you to connect with God and others in a deep and meaningful way, resisting the impersonal forces of the modern world.
Advocate for Human-Centered Technology: Where possible, advocate for and support technology that enhances rather than detracts from human flourishing. This might involve supporting companies and products that prioritize ethical considerations and human well-being.
Embrace Slow Growth and Patience: Inspired by the metaphor of the olive tree, cultivate patience and a long-term perspective in your personal growth, relationships, and community engagement. Recognize that true impact and change often require time and sustained effort.

Liberals and Conservatives

Tue, 16 Apr 2024 16:18:00 +0000

Burnham’s definitions of Conservatives and Liberals with respect to their disposition towards governing, leaving aside specific issues and social questions (although these are usually manifestations of these principles). He calls them “syndromes” since more often than not they come in packages and a person who holds to one is likely to hold to the others.

Conservatives

Belief that government involves a non-rational factor; distrust of abstract political ideology.
Belief that human nature is limited and corrupt; anti-utopianism.
Respect for tradition
Belief in the diffusion of sovereignty and power.
For representative, mediated government; against plebiscitary democracy.
For States’ Rights
For the autonomy of the various branches of the central government.
Greater solicitude for the limits than for the powers of government.
Belief that the American constitutional tradition embodies principles that are intelligible, and of permanent value.
For decentralization and localization.
Presumption in favor of private economic enterprise.
Primary philosophic concern with individuals in their private capacity, rather than with nation or other collectivity.
Presumption in favor of Congress as against executive.

Liberals

Confidence in the ability of rational science and democratic ideology to comprehend and solve all problems of government.
Belief in the unlimited potentiality of human nature
No presumption in favor of traditional usage.
Willingness to waive principle of diffusion of power if thereby progressive forces or goals are furthered.
Tendency towards plebiscitary democracy.
Minor concern with or even disapproval of States’ rights.
Belief that the autonomy of the branches of the central government hinders solution of major contemporary problems.
More solicitude for the power of government to accomplish progressive goals than for limits on government.
Interpretation of the American constitutional tradition as instrumental, it’s meaning wholly dependent on time and circumstance.
Belief that decentralization and localization often interfere with solution of modern problems.
Critical attitude toward private economic enterprise, and positive belief in government economic control plus some measure of government ownership.
Belief that expansion of governmental activity aids the attainment of the good life.
Presumption in favor of the executive as against Congress.

In 2024, it’s questionable whether either party’s nominee for President genuinely holds to conservative syndromes, and instead appears that both take a fundamentally liberal stance towards the Federal government (regardless of official party platform)

References

[[ Burnham, Congress and the American Tradition ]], p. 143-144

Smith, How to Inhabit Time

Sun, 07 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

Those who imagine they inhabit nowhen imagine themselves wholly governed by timeless principles, unchanging convictions, expressing an idealism that assumes they are wholly governed by eternal ideas untainted by history. They are oblivious to the deposits of history in their own unconscious. They have never considered the archaeological strata in their own souls. (195)

Whether in my own spiritual life or, say, the lifelong journey of a marriage, recognizing the reality of seasons can be incredibly liberating, not only because it changes our expectations but also because it attunes us to receive God’s grace in different ways in different eras of a life. The spiritual dynamics of time and history are at once communal and individual, personal and political. We must attend to our history just as I face my own. Reckoning and hope scale to both soul and society. (249)

Like trees whose rings tell the story of fires and droughts from a distant past, our character and capacities reflect histories that long preceded us as well as the personal histories that amount to our own story. A faithful Christian life is a matter of keeping time with the Spirit. But what the Spirit asks of us always reflects history—our own, but also the history of the church and the societies in which we find ourselves. “What do we do now?” is one of the fundamental questions of discipleship. (268)

This is the fundamental conviction of catholicity: the Spirit continues to guide and lead into the future, across history, still guiding, convicting, illuminating, and revealing, which is precisely why ongoing reform is necessary. The story is still unfolding. Listening to the Spirit is not an archaeological dig for some original deposit but rather an attunement to a God with us, still speaking, still surprising, still revealing. (413)

Meditation 1: Ecclesiastes 3:9-15

Our inability to see the whole is not reason to despair. Our being subject to the conditions of temporality is not a prison but a focus. Gifted with boundaries, we are given room to be happy, to find joy, to enjoy time and—perhaps?—even toil. “That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction [“pleasure” even, the NRSV says] in all their toil—this is the gift of God” (3:13). The Teacher’s counsel is provocative, even table-turning: lean into your creaturehood; live into your temporality; dig into your toil. There are gifts you might never have imagined: pleasure, happiness, joy. (490)

Chapter 1 - Creature of Time: How to Face our Forgetting

“For everything created, to be is to be temporal…”
We pickup and carry our entire history as we roll through time
Phenomenology - school of philosophy on how we experience the world
“My history makes me ‘me’” because it’s the past experiences that propel us into the future.
Existence is highly contingent
Our responsibility is to play from the contingencies of the cards we’ve been dealt.
“Our past is not what we leave behind, it’s what we carry”
Our institutions embed our past in ways of doing things.
We often unwittingly spurn inherited gifts, oblivious to the borrowed capital we’re depending on.
Often it’s a negative legacy that continues to reverberate (slavery, oppression, etc)
One common way of forgetting is nostalgia:
- We only selectively remember the past, dismissing parts that might propel us in a different direction
- Another form of this is primitivism
- It is frequently leveraged to advocate for a romantic ideal of “the way things used to be”
Mirror image is the ideal of “progress,” idealizing a future version despite contrary evidence from the past.
Related is “doomsdayism” - demonizing the future
- examples- rapture-ready, environmental disaster, etc.
Discernment involves interpreting our place in history rather than seeing it as something to be done.
The irony that our man-made problems are frequently caused by the wrong use of God’s gifts in our pride and arrogance. What we need is contrition.
Neibuhr - “Consciousness of an ironic situation tends to dissolve it”
Discerning the present and what God expects is difficult but necessary.

But the only hand we have to play is the hand we’ve been dealt by the history that has come before us. Because we are heirs of such history, possibilities open up for us. Thrownness is not a negative thing. Because I’ve been thrown into the life and time in which I find myself, I have a future that calls for me to realize possibilities latent in what has been handed down. (631)

The mirror image of nostalgia is a rosy, idealist notion of “progress,” a tendency to romanticize the so-called arc of history as the inevitability of our own virtue. (747)

Our situation, rather, is ironic: so many evils are of our own making, and yet so many of those evils are generated by our blinkered virtues and the unconscious shadows of our best intentions. “The evil in human history is regarded as the consequence of man’s wrong use of his unique capacities. The wrong use is always due to some failure to recognize the limits of his capacities of power, wisdom and virtue. Man is an ironic creature because he forgets that he is not simply a creator but also a creature.” (831)

Chapter 2 - A History of the Human Heart: How to Learn from Ghosts

Discussing how the perspective of an Arctic winter and summer challenges our view of time.
Just like we cannot compare “equal sunlight” in the arctic and tropics, we cannot compare ourselves with others.
Our past oozes into the present (like oil from a whale)
Muscle memory
- Not only is the past with us, sometimes it grates against our present
We are thrown into a specific time and place which sets the horizons of possibility. Entrusting to God is partly acknowledging that he has thrown us.
Grace writes a new chapter, not erasing all that’s past.
It is my unique blend of past & personality that make up the poiema God is creating with me.
This extends back to the generations before.

We are thrown into a time and place, thrown into a story that is our history, and these form the horizons of possibility for us—our temporal halo we described earlier. That is not a limitation as much as a focusing, a gifted specificity. This corner of earth I’ve been given to till. These neighbors I am called to love. These talents I’m exhorted to fan into flame. This neighborhood in which to birth a future. (1032)

Just as the resurrected Christ bears the mark of his wounds—his “history” with the Roman Empire—so the new self in Christ is the resurrection of a self with a past. The “I” is saved only if this me with this bodily history rises to new life. If all that I’ve lived through was simply erased by grace, then “I” am lost rather than redeemed. If all that I’ve become and learned and acquired and experienced was just overwhelmed and made null by grace, then salvation would be an obliteration rather than redemption. (1116)

everything I’m able to dream and hope and chase in the future is because of what has been bequeathed to me by those who have preceded me. There is a mystery of inheritance at work here: I am no doubt an heir to dispositions and habits and even pretensions from ancestors I’ve never met. God’s grace enables me to make friends even with my ghosts. (1191)

Meditation 2: Ecclesiastes 7:10-14

Every nostalgic impulse to turn back the clock is a foolish willingness to sacrifice all we’ve learned. (1220)

Here is counsel for mortals, for “those who see the sun”: Look at what God has done. There is an inexplicable mystery about it. You couldn’t have imagined your life, its bends and pivots, its zigs and zags. The crookedness of your unlikely life is not a failure. The wending paths aren’t mistakes. The looping route that looked like it was going nowhere was a switchback climbing a mountain. The jagged line that is your story tracks the path of God’s companionship and care. Who, indeed, can straighten what God has made crooked? And why would you wish it were straighter? Look what God has done: that crooked line is one he drew with you. (1225)

Chapter 3 - The Sacred Folds of Kairos: How (Not) to Be Contemporary

Church paintings that seem to bend history into an eternal present.
Are we further from God, the longer we go after the incarnation?
- Kierkegaard says no - the point is to make followers, and an eyewitness does not == follower
- “History matters, but how it matters makes all of the difference”
No one can follow without God’s grace, and if it is granted, you are at no disadvantage
The liturgical calendar reflects the bending of time around the incarnate Christ.
Similar to how the 2nd generation in Deuteronomy is addressed as if they were primary witnesses.
The contingency of time, and the agreement among nations in the 1800s to standardize time.
In a sense the Church’s liturgical calendar is there to keep time for the source and people of God.

As Kierkegaard puts it, the God who arrives in history as Mary’s son in first-century Palestine is not looking merely for eyewitnesses; God is looking for followers, learners, disciples.6 We shouldn’t confuse eyewitness contemporaries of Jesus with followers. While the historical revelation of God is a condition for encountering the paradox, being contemporary with the God-man is not sufficient for such an encounter. “Knowing a historical fact—indeed, knowing all the historical facts with the trustworthiness of an eyewitness—by no means makes the eyewitness a follower.”7 Why? Because the difference between an eyewitness contemporary and a follower is how they relate to this historical appearance. (1322)

On the road to Emmaus, not even resurrection immediately translates into recognition; something else has to be given. There is a grace needed to glimpse the God who graces history. (1360)

In the vivid descriptions of the trials of Israel and Yahweh’s enduring faithfulness, Moses’s speeches make later generations witnesses of past events in the same spirit that Kierkegaard’s later followers are “contemporaries” of Christ. “At one remove, the members of the historical audience of the Book of Deuteronomy are implicitly invited to imagine what their forebears actually saw, to see it vicariously. The midrashic notion that all future generations of Israel were already present as witnesses at Sinai is adumbrated, perhaps actually generated, by this rhetorical strategy of the evocation of witnessing in Deuteronomy.” (1450)

Chapter 4 - Embrace the Ephemeral: How to Love What You’ll Lose

As we age, we often feel a sense of Autumn in our lives.
Finitude is part of our design and should not be resented. We should embrace our mortality and contingency as a gift.
Every time we seek to capture a moment, we lose it. This major problem with outsourcing our memories to camera.
The ephemeral is a feature of finitude. To live as a mortal is to embrace it and treasure the joy in it.
Sin has left us facing mortality as a disaster.
- Is there mortality w/o sin?
There is an art to losing, so we can be prepared and it’s not a disaster.

Perhaps the reason I didn’t feel sad about the onset of fall when I was younger is only that I was younger, with my whole life still ahead. In those days my only worry was that my real life, the one I would choose for myself and live on my own terms, was taking too long to arrive. Now I understand that every day I’m given is as real as life will ever get. Now I understand that we are guaranteed nothing, that our days are always running out. That they have always, always been running out. (1580)

This is temporal contentment: to inhabit time with eyes wide open, hands outstretched, not to grasp but to receive, enjoy, and let go. Sometimes knowing this won’t last forever compels us to hold hands in the present. (1640)

Here might be the deep lesson of the Teacher’s wisdom in Ecclesiastes: to not bemoan our mortal estate but to face it, accept it, and find rhythms in sync with the fleeting nature of time. One might say it is an exercise in redeeming vanity. “Enjoy life with the wife whom you love,” the Teacher counsels, “all the days of your vain life that are given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun” (Eccles. 9:9). The sticky words here, “vanity” and “toil,” are demoralizing and sit uneasily with the Teacher’s opening injunction: “Enjoy!” Enjoy vanity, emptiness, meaninglessness?…This is not a counsel of despair or resignation but rather an invitation to reframe expectations such that I can “enjoy” what’s before me, who is with me, fleeting as their presence might be. The question isn’t whether we can escape this condition but how we will receive our mortality, how we will shepherd what’s fleeting yet given. (1682)

The trick, Augustine says, is to learn to love what you’ll lose. That doesn’t mean despising what can’t endure or hating what is transitory. It means holding it with an open hand, loving it in the ways appropriate to mortal things. When love is rightly ordered, we can embrace even the ephemeral. (1822)

Meditation 3 - Ecclesiastes 11:7-12:8

The teacher’s meditation defies despair and passes wisdom to the next generation.

Life is a fleeting vapor, but it is not meaningless. Rejoice in your youth, as elders grant to the youth what you long for.

So rejoice, you young, while you are young. Be young, even though it’s hard to understand youth until you’ve lost it. (And you elders: remember what you wasted and grant the youth what you now long for.) Remember whose you are, as creatures who bear the image of your Creator, creatures whose very fleeting breath is given. Get rambunctious in your creaturehood while you have the energy and dreams and distinct joy of youth. (1870)

Chapter 5 - Seasons of the Heart: How to Inhabit Your Now

(Definitely the most “woke” of the chapters in the book)

Discussing the Geometry of the earth and the resulting seasons. The irony that harvest comes at the end, from dying plants.

Our always-on approach to food disconnects us from the rhythms of nature’s seasonal foods. We settle for second-rate all the time vs. high quality at the right time.

Preservation is a lesson we learn from seasonality. To store up in harvest because winter comes.

The eras of life are perhaps the most accurate way to view our “when”

For example, the years of “birth” when a couple is childrearing

Knowing what time it is takes discernment

For example, discerning the priority of one of your callings in a given period

Recognizing the call to care for an aging relative

This also applies collectively, discerning the season as a community or institution

One cheat code to getting outside of our immediate fray is developing intergenerational friendships.

It’s important to understand that seasons happen to us and are not who we are.

Our experiences with God and the way we understand Scripture also ebb and flow in seasons.

Fast food culture is driven by its own kind of atemporal idealism that floats above the realities of time—it contrives a “nowhen” by making everything available everywhere, all the time. “We have been conditioned to expect the endless bounty of summer foods through every season, even though that’s simply not how nature works.” This fabricated fiction that makes me live as if it’s always strawberry season both warps my expectations and undermines my attunement to the goods of the world. (1919)

Seasonality means that, rather than being governed by the unceasing ticks of a minute hand, our lives unfold in eras. While minutes, days, and years carve up and measure the cosmic time of Earth’s course around a dwarf star, for temporal creatures like us, the season is perhaps the most natural form of timekeeping. The answer to the question “When am I?” isn’t six o’clock or 2022; it is more like youth, middle age, chapter 3 of a life. (1981)

If there are seasons in which we should expect certain kinds of experiences to befall us, there are also times when certain actions are expected of us. While some of these seasons arrive without our bidding (birth, death, weeping, laughing), much of what the Teacher counsels here assumes our agency. In this sense, Ecclesiastes is both teaching us what to expect and also exhorting us to recognize what’s called for, what’s expected of us in different seasons. Sometimes we are called to embrace; in other seasons we might best bear witness to justice by refusing to embrace some pseudoreconciliation. There will be times when we should be building, launching, founding; but in a transitory world, sometimes wisdom will be knowing when to shut it down and dismantle. It might be hard to imagine there could ever be a season that calls for us to tear; shouldn’t we be weavers, menders, repairing the social fabric? Yes, but sometimes that will mean tearing down the flags and monuments that have functioned as barriers for full inclusion, mementos of terror that only deserve to be torn down. We will be primed to ask ourselves, “Is this a season for me to be quiet?” without fretting we’ll never be heard again. (2037)

In the later chapters of a life, we might find that, whatever we might have had planned for that season, the Spirit is calling us to attend to a loved one who is ill and fading. To answer that call is to recognize a vocational focus for a time. Giving ourselves over to that might be difficult; we may also have to mourn what we had planned. “We must be willing to let go of the life we had planned,” says E. M. Forster, “so as to have the life that is waiting for us.” (2095)

However, there is one way to almost cheat and get outside your now. If you want to transcend time, build friendships across generations. Though you can’t stand outside your season, you can hear from those who’ve lived through such seasons. In my experience, this is one of the great gifts of multigenerational friendships. Friendship, in this respect, is akin to time travel. There are patterns of a human life that, despite our claims to utter uniqueness, are in fact repeated and shared.(2153)

Discernment is not well served by self-congratulating histories that simply narrate our founding mythologies and confirm the stories we tell ourselves. Discernment requires an attention to history that is willing to be vulnerable to what we’ve buried, ignored, and would rather not hear. Only when we face those facets of our history will we properly understand when we are and who we’ve become. (2209)

You will also find that Scripture sounds different, depending on your season. Or rather, depending on the sort of season you find yourself in, you will find yourself differently attuned to the same Word you’ve heard a thousand times before. Part of the profundity of the Bible is the way it can give itself to us so differently across an entire life—indeed, across millennia and generations, like a never-ending, cascading waterfall whose presence is steady but whose notes and sounds are constantly different.(2250)

Chapter 6 - On Not Living Ahead of Time: How to Sing Maranatha!

The Time Being - that time between, waiting for consummation

The world to come is imagined to us in terms we can understand from our own sense experience

We must resist the temptation to rush the kingdom in.

A “practical eschatology,” as I’m calling it, is the lived wisdom of knowing when we are and hence living a harmonious life, individually and collectively, that holds together the tension of the already and not-yet as a chord. It is the chord that sounds on the edge-point of spending time with the future and not living ahead of time. But practical eschatology is not just about the soul’s destiny or life after death. Eschatology is primarily about how we occupy ourselves in the now, how we live in “the Time Being” in a way that bears witness to the reality of what we pray for when we long for the kingdom to come. That is why eschatology is more political than personal. An eschatology is a theology of public life, the life we share in common in the meantime. Eschatology is about how we live in the now, and that “we” is as wide as humanity, even if we’re not all keeping time in the same way. (2487)

God’s gifts are not just miraculous incursions into the present; they are more often legacies of God’s influence on the cosmos handed down to us in the snowball effects of history. For example, there are many ways in which the institutions and practices of liberal democracy are the distinct fruit of Christianity’s impact on the political institutions of the West and (now) wider world. The political goods of representation, checks on power, even mercy in judgment, are distinct effects of the encounter between the gospel and political life. And the legacy of that redemptive impact of grace on our common life is a gift that benefits many of those of other faiths and those with no faith at all. It is a legacy that shines upon the just and the unjust, so to speak.(2613)

Leisure is an eschatological discipline of stilling hubris and resting in the God who has raised Jesus as the firstfruits of what is to come. “Having enough time” is an act of hope. Building margins into a life so you can respond to opportunities to muse, play, talk, pray is its own defiant act of trust and expectation. (2726)

Epilogue

The God who saves is a mosaic artist who takes the broken fragments of our history and does a new thing: he creates a work of art in which that history is reframed, reconfigured, taken up, and reworked such that the mosaic could only be what it is with that history. The consummation of time is not the erasure of history. The end of all things is a “taking up,” not a destruction.

The Challenge of C.S. Lewis

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0000

C.S. Lewis is a household name in most Christian circles, and his influence in evangelicalism is undeniable. Between his fantasy fiction writings, most notable The Chronicles of Narnia, and his more theological fiction and non-fiction, such as Mere Christianity, Screwtape Letters, and the Great Divorce, Lewis finds a very broad audience. In many churches, Mere Christianity will frequently be recommended to non-believers or new Christians as an introduction to the faith. The clarity and wit with which Lewis writes surely explains much of the appeal.

However, at least among the more conservative and reformed evangelicals, this phenomenon is actually quite interesting considering a number of Lewis’s theological positions. While this is a bit of simplification, and not taking into account changes that may have occurred between later Lewis and earlier Lewis (and most readers don’t make such a distinction), consider if a public figure in evangelicalism published works that:

Called into question the inerrancy of scripture
Spoke affirmingly of biological macro-evolution
Advocated an inclusivist understanding of salvation among those who have not heard and/or accepted the gospel
Was ambiguous on the atonement
Believed it was possible for a Christian to lose their salvation and ultimately be lost
Taught a form of justification that is more consistent with Roman Catholicism than historic Protestantism (e.g. Justification via transformation rather than a forensic justification by faith)
Held to a form of purgatory, or after death purification process between death and glory I can imagine that in many similar cases, such an figure would be considered out of bounds and their books not recommended except for the purposes of analysis and critique. Certainly, this is true even of Lewis for many, with some going so far as to even question whether he should even be counted as a Christian (which view seriously conflates doctrinal correctness with personal faith). However, by and large (in my experience), Lewis is not received with the same caution and/or derision as other notable figures - N.T. Wright, Rob Bell, John Walton, for recent examples.

What explains this discrepancy? Here are 6 considerations:

Apologetic Effectiveness: Lewis’s apologetic works, such as Mere Christianity, offer a robust defense of the Christian faith that resonates deeply with evangelical beliefs. His ability to articulate complex theological concepts in accessible language has made his works valuable tools for evangelism and apologetics, emphasizing common Christian doctrines over denominational differences. Lewis has been a teacher and example for multiple generations of evangelical apologists.
Literary Merit and Influence: Lewis’s literary contributions, particularly the Chronicles of Narnia, have deeply influenced both children and adults, weaving Christian allegorical themes into compelling narratives. This broad literary appeal often supersedes theological discrepancies, with many evangelicals viewing Lewis’s works as a gateway to deeper spiritual reflection and understanding.
Historical and Cultural Context: The period during which Lewis wrote (mid-20th century) was marked by a cultural milieu that was more accepting of nuanced theological positions. Lewis’s academic standing and intellectual approach to Christianity provided a bridge between conservative evangelicalism and broader cultural and intellectual movements of the time, making his ideas more palatable even when they diverged from evangelical mainstream.
Selective Emphasis: Many evangelicals engage with Lewis’s work selectively, focusing on areas of agreement such as the lordship of Christ, the reality of sin, and the need for salvation, while overlooking or minimizing areas of disagreement. This selective engagement allows Lewis’s broader contributions to Christian thought to be appreciated without necessitating full doctrinal alignment.
Legacy and Icon Status: Over time, Lewis has attained an almost legendary status among Christians of many denominations, including conservative evangelicals. This status is partly due to the widespread use of his quotes in sermons, books, and social media, often devoid of the broader context of his more controversial views. The legacy of Lewis as a defender of the faith often overshadows the specifics of his theological positions.
Ecumenical Appeal: Lewis’s emphasis on “mere Christianity” — the core beliefs common to Christians across denominations — has endeared him to a wide audience, including conservative evangelicals. This approach promotes unity based on shared beliefs rather than division over doctrinal differences, appealing to evangelicals who prioritize core Christian tenets.

Some reading for further reflection:

Finding the Right Hills to Die on: The Case for Theological Triage - a book discussing the importance of approaching theological disagreements with charity and perspective.
Stuck in the middle with Jesus: The future of C.S. Lewis evangelicalism - A politically-focused and left-leaning article, but one that posits the interesting category of “C.S. Lewis evangelicals”.
The 2013 Desiring God National Conference focused on the work and impact of C.S. Lewis and contains some very good reflections.

Lewis, Mere Christianity

Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0000

It’s been a long time since I first encountered this book, and I do believe my opinion of it has shifted after this later reading. Lewis is a winsome writer and wordsmith, and is easy to read and enjoy. However, I think in terms of introductory and/or apologetic treatments of the Christian faith, there are many better places to go these days. Clear strengths would be his ability to leverage analogies to explain a concept without relying on jargon or difficult definitions, as well as his treatment of ethical/moral issues. Clear weaknesses, in my opinion, would be his treatment of the atonement and much of the other theological work, which at times felt quite muddled, as well as a lack of engagement with the Bible.

However, faults aside, the enduring legacy of evangelicals recommending Mere Christianity is a testimony to the impact this book has had on countless lives. The Lord often seems to prefer to work and convey his true through weak and leak vessels.

Book I

Preface

In the preface, Lewis begins with what amounts to a defense of his non-sectarian approach in the book and why he left out discussion of certain doctrinal & ethical topics. On the whole, I think his approach is legitimate and it makes sense when discussion is focused on a non-christian to stat away from intramural disputes.

While Lewis explicitly discounts the idea, there is the danger of someone deciding to camp out in “Mere Christianity” and never going so far as to join a leaving, breathing, historical communion, from which the concept itself is derived.

I love his discussion of our tendency to ruin words by using them in a way that moves them from an objective reality to a subjective evaluation, leaving the language void of a word for what was formerly described.

Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.

Chapter 1 - The Law of Nature

Everyone has a standard of behavior that they think is “right.” Even though there may be some differences across civilizations, there are remarkable commonalities as well. There is, it seems, a Law of Human Nature, to which we all feel more or less accountable. Elsewhere, Lewis refers to this as the Tao. What else is common is that we all fail to live up to our own standard consistently. With that - a conscience that testifies against our own actions - we have the start of an understanding of sin and fallen human nature. It’s possible that Romans 2:14-15 refers to this same phenomenon (although this is debated).

There is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behaviour, and yet quite definitely real — a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us.

Chapter 2 - Answering Objections

Here Lewis deals with the object that what he calls the Moral Law is just herd instinct, naturally conditioned impulses. However, this doesn’t account for the sense of “ought,” especially when faced with two competing impulses. Likewise, the fact that we render judgment on some culture’s morals as good or bad indicates that we perceive a standard by which to evaluate them. While certainly, human sin has corrupted and distorted this innate moral sense, by God’s common grace it is still preserved as an echo through human generations.

“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark.

Chapter 3 - The Reality of the Law

There is a fundamental difference between what we call the “Laws of Nature,” which is a term to describe things that are, as they always are. Gravity always behaves a specific way, etc. To say something is not as it ought to be in nature is to render a judgment on its fitness for my purpose, but there is no “ought” that is missing. The Laws of Nature are really just the steady consistency of the sovereignty of God. On the other hand, when speaking of morality or the Laws of human nature, it’s clear that there is a distinction between “is” and “ought” and this means there is a law over us that is not simply a reflection of us.

But the most remarkable thing is that we all really agree about it.

Chapter 4 - What Lies Behind the Law

The question science can’t answer: Why is there anything rather than nothing? Does it have any meaning? Science works by observation and experimentation and is therefore unable to speak to what is behind the observations. However, the options are: materialist (chance, no explanation) and religious (a mind). The law of human nature we see in ourselves points to mind. There must be a mind behind the law of ought, and it is reasonable to say so.

A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.

Chapter 5 - We have cause to be uneasy

A few conclusions up to this point: 1) We should dismiss the idea of progress as indicating that if we have left behind God and religion we should never go back. If you’ve made a wrong turn somewhere, the only right move is to go back. 2) If the moral law indicates a mind behind reality, it also indicates that this mind is Good. And far from being a comfort, which it may be in its own right, it should in fact make us very uneasy, considering how we stray from the “ought” within us. 3) Bringing in Christianity is not a trick, but a helpful way of making sense of the reality discussed so far. Without that foundation set, that of there being a dilemma of moral lawgiver and broken laws, Christianity may not make a whole lot of sense.

If there is a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe—no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house.

Book II

Chapter 1 - The Rival Conceptions of God

Lewis breaks down the basic ideas about God thus:
God vs. No-God
Then among believers in God:
Good God vs God Beyond Good/Evil
Separate God vs Pantheists
If everything is God, then you can’t really distinguish between good and evil, since we clearly see evil and injustice.

So the question is, if God is good, why is there bad? Here Lewis first removes the escape hatch of just denying God’s existence at all. By that route, you have to presuppose a standard of Justice by which to judge the world unjust, but this standard would need to be above the world and thus invalidate the atheistic conception of reality.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.

Chapter 2 - The Invasion

There are no simple answers, because reality is not simple, or obvious, but it is actually quite odd. This oddness is a characteristic of Christianity as well.

Given the universe we observe, there are really two live options: Christianity and Dualism. However, Dualism doesn’t hold up since to even speak of opposing sides of Good & Evil requires us to have a standard of judging good and evil, otherwise the difference between two sides is merge our preference.

So, rather than dualism, we have Good, and the evil existing as a rebellion against the good. Christianity is the story of a world in rebellion, and the church is effectively a saboteur in enemy-occupied territory.

Christianity agrees with Dualism that this universe is at war, but it does not think this is a war between independent powers: it thinks it is a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of the universe occupied by the rebel.

Chapter 3 - The Shocking Alternative

So we have Satan as the power over the world, but only by God’s permission. Is Satan’s rebellion part of God’s will or against it? Yes. Lewis argues that God chooses to allow sin for the greater good of having creatures that exercise free will. He even gives the awkward phrase that God “deemed it worth the risk” to have free will. Certainly, it can be said that the creatures were free to choose sin or righteousness, so in that sense the free will argument stands. But does it go far enough? Did God “take a risk,” as Lewis puts it, or is the ultimate truth deeper than that? Presumably, God created knowing, not only that his creatures could fall, but indeed that they would fall. Reformed theologians would stress that God’s ultimate design was the manifestation of the rich glory of his nature in all its faces, which includes judgment and mercy.

The remainder of the chapter expounds God’s witness to the truth in conscience, in legend (what Lewis calls “good dreams”), and finally in Jesus, who claimed to be the divine Son of God. Here we find the famous Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument.

Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.

Chapter 4 - The Perfect Penitent

In making a distinction between the reality of atonement and the theories, I think Lewis is entirely correct to a point. Undoubtedly, one need not be able to explain how Jesus saves you from your sin in order to believe that he does and benefit from it. On the other hand, it seems like there is a lot more scriptural witness to the atonement than what he waves off as “theories that you can take or leave.” Overall, I was pretty underwhelmed with his account of the glorious reconciliation thatr has been achieved for us in Christ.

God became man to turn creatures into sons: not simply to produce better men of the old kind but to produce a new kind of man.

Chapter 5 - Practical Conclusion

Through the means of faith, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, Christ’s life is communicated to use and Christ himself lives in us and through us. Our good deeds are actually his good deeds carried out in us. Lewis declines to offer any explanation of why or how here, other than it does, and we must take it on authority, which is not unreasonable since so much else of life (science, history, etc.) is taken on authority.

He touches briefly on the question of whether those who never heard of Christ can be saved by Christ, and leaves the door open for it (although is much more affirmative in later chapters). He then offers an answer to the objection as to why God would do it this way rather than come in force to destroy the realm of Satan - namely, to allow us the opportunity to freely choose him, since when he does come in force, there will be no more free choice. It’s probably reading too much into Lewis’s intent, but I can’t help but see here a semi-Pelagian (at least) conception of conversion, where the unbeliever is completely neutral (rather than enslaved to sin) and free to choose God over sin without regenerating work of the Holy Spirit through the gospel.

The Christian does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us.

Book III

Chapter 1 - Morality

Three dimensions to morality: 1) The social - how we interact with one another, and the societal rules and structures that uphold it. 2) The individual - how an individual lives there personal existence. 3) The teleological - what are we here for? What is the purpose of a human? To what end should we strive? Most people tend to get stuck in #1 without acknowledging that it requires moral individuals to ever come close to achieving a stable and sound society. And at the individual level the question hinges on what is right, good, proper working design; in order words, what is humanity for? The different religions have different answers to that question which drive their particular morality.

The moral law is not any one instinct or set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.

Chapter 2 - The Cardinal Virtues

Considering the four cardinal virtues of the ancients:

Prudence - acting wisely and intelligently. God does not like intellectual slackers any more than other slackers.
Temperance - not abstaining from pleasures, but being able to enjoy in the right amounts and abstain when needed.
Justice - Balanced scales, honest, being “fair” and judicious
Fortitude - Being courageous These are characteristics that a Christian should be identified with as a way of life, not merely acting in some of them every now and then.

Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.

Christian morality is really just saying the same thing we’ve all known deep down - do unto others as you’d have done unto you. Is that really accurate, though? Or does it assume inherited worldview of the Judeo-Christian West? Undoubtedly, there are commonalities, but it seems starkly different than any other society. So maybe the point is arguing that our consciences tell us this.

He goes on to argue that there is no cross-time-and-place application of it , but that it must be worked out by Christians in context. Not by the clergy, but by the ones in the thick of it. The Christian way of economics should be figured out by Christian economists, and so on.

From the New Testament hints, there are some things we can glean - it will tend to be left-leaning with respect to public policy, and conservative with respect to family and personal lifestyles. He goes on to draw specific application in the realm of a debt-driven economy and charitable giving.

Do not waste time bothering whether you ‘love’ your neighbor; act as if you did.

Chapter 4 - Morality and Psychoanalysis

Discussion of the role of psychotherapy and Christian morality. In Lewis’ view, the two are complementary, with psychology addressing the raw material out of which a man makes moral choices while Christian morality is the moral choice itself. The rest of the chapter feels a little too semi-Pelagian (although see Chapter 11), but there is a great point at the end about how every moral choice we make, good or bad, shapes us further into a heavenly character or a hellish character.

Psychoanalysis itself, apart from all the philosophical implications of its Freudian origins, is not in the least contradictory to Christianity.

Chapter 5 - Sexual Morality

Lewis distinguishes between chastity and propriety, the latter changing with the expectations of society and the former fixed for all time. Christian chastity entails sex within the bounds of faithful marriage or none at all. He then answers objections about the source of sexual imbalance not being deprivation, whether there is danger of repression, and finally of God’s grace in the midst of our imperfect obedience. Christians are not opposed to sex and pleasure, but only to the distortions and peddling of it that is so rampant in our day.

Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it; the Christian rule is, ‘Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.’

Chapter 6 - Christian Marriage

A good discussion of marriage from the unmarried Lewis. Some interesting points:

The lifelong nature of marriage is a matter of justice and basic honesty, fulfilling the vows that were made in the height of “being in love.” The feeling often serves to incite the vows.
Distinguishing the feeling of being in love from the true and proper grounds of a lasting marriage, which is no less love but one of commitment.
Lewis sees an important distinction between Christian marriage and marriage in broader society, arguing that Christians should not force their views of marriage upon non-Christians. He concludes with a traditional defense of the husband’s headship in marriage.

What we call ‘being in love’ is a glorious state, and, in several ways, good for your soul. But it is not the essence of marital love; it does not lead to the permanent and far more satisfying life of marriage.

Chapter 7 - Forgiveness

Forgiveness, says Lewis, may be an even harder thing to live by than chastity, but it is fundamental to loving our neighbors, which includes our enemies. Forgiveness doesn’t mean you must like the other person, or consider them nice, the main thing is that you should resist the inner pull to hatred, which is fundamentally hellish and unhuman. Hate evil, punish and even kill if needed, but keep your heart from hatred.

To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.

Chapter 8 - The Great Sin

The chief of sins, which no non-Christian wants to acknowledge but which they despise in everyone else is Pride. As Lewis calls it, “the complete anti-God state of mind.” This is at the root of so many other vices and through competition is able to make even virtues into terrible sins. It is the devil’s favorite and so deceptive that even attempts at holiness can actually be exhibitions of terrible pride. Not to be confused with appreciating praise from others or admiring someone else.

Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.

Chapter 9 - Charity

Christian charity, which encompasses much more than the “alms” the word has come to mean, is the disposition of will that seeks to act in love towards the person loved. It is not a “liking” or “affection,” although very frequently the best way to cultivate that affection is by acting in love.

Charity means ‘Love, in the Christian sense’. But love, in the Christian sense, does not mean an emotion. It is a state not of the feelings but of the will; that state of the will which we have naturally about ourselves, and must learn to have about other people.

Chapter 10 - Hope

If you look at history, you find that it is those who are most heavenly minded who have done the most earthly good. Pursue the earthly good first, and you fall short. Many of our desires are found to unfillable in this life, which gives us indication that maybe we were made for a different world. The Christian does not naively keep chasing the satisfaction that never comes, nor does he settle into cynicism, but instead receives the temporal as a blessing and foretaste of the eternal that only God can supply.

If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next.

Chapter 11 - Faith

The first of two meanings of faith - simply belief, regarding Christianity as true. The reasoning may be compelling but we’re often tempted to unbelief by emotion and not reason. This kind of faith persists in belief that what you know is true in the face of temptations from emotion, etc.

With respect to faith in the second sense, it’s important to realize that we can never please God of our own will, and all the good we do is actually enabled by his gift.

Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.

Chapter 12 - Faith

Faith in the second sense is fundamentally an act of trust. Trust in Christ as the one who is perfect, and who shares his perfection with us, so that though we have reached the end of our rope trying to walk in obedience, and realized we fell short of it, we can trust that he will yet deliver us. This is a personal allegiance to the kind, and it follows that those with such allegiance will also seek to align their lives with the king’s will.

Faith…is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.

Book 4

Chapter 1 - Making and Begetting

Lewis makes a defense of theology, agreeing that the map is not the territory but that the map is absolutely essential to getting along in life. Theology is practical, both in helping us engage the ideas of the world as well as knowing what our end will be and what we should be about. For Lewis, the significance is the transition from animal life (Bios) to Spiritual life (Zoe). We shall be sons of God in a sense not true today.

We don’t use the words ‘begotten’ or ‘begetting’ much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers, and a bird begets eggs that turn into baby birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself.

Chapter 2 - The Three Personal God

God is not personal, but super-personal. Similar to one dimensional vs three dimensional, God is three personality in one being. The illustration of the Trinity at work in prayer is helpful. He also makes an important point that you cannot hope to know God without his first making himself know. The simplicity of some religions is their give away that they are made up.

God is not a static thing…not even a person…but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance.

Chapter 3 - Time and Beyond Time

A fairly philosophical chapter about God being above time, so that he experiences all moments as real and present. What is past or future to us is no less present to him. This is how Lewis accounts for God’s ability to answer the prayers of thousands at the same time. It is very speculative to be sure, but helps Lewis with the question of foreknowledge.

If you picture Time as a straight line along which we have to travel, then you must picture God as the whole page on which the line is drawn. We come to points on the line one by one: we have to leave A behind before we get to B, and cannot reach C until we leave B behind. God, from above or outside or all round, contains the whole line, and sees it all.

Chapter 4 - Good infection

The Father and Son have always existed in a love relationship in which the father begets the Son, who is his Word and Speech. The union of love between them is also a person, the Holy Spirit. There is a dance between them are we are invited to join in and share in the life-giving, loving energy that they share.

The whole purpose for which we exist is to be taken into the life of God. Wrong ideas about what we are up to lead to wrong ideas about Christianity… What we are trying to do is to remain fully human, all the while trying to become taken up into God, or recreated into Christ-likeness.

Chapter 5 - The obstinate toy soldiers

Christ’s incarnation was for the purpose of uniting humanity with the divine spiritual life. Humanity is not a bunch of isolated entities but truly a united organism when viewed over time. Since the natural in us has come to be opposed to the spiritual, Christ’s incarnation is also for the purposes of killing the natural.

The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God.

Chapter 6 - Two Notes

1) The idea of multiple begotten Sons of God seems non-sensical 2) Human race as an organism does not deny the individual. The two extreme mistakes are Individualism on one side and Collectivism on the other.

Christianity thinks of human individuals not as mere members of a group or items in a list, but as organs in a body—different from one another and each contributing what no other could.

Chapter 7 - Let’s Pretend

When we begin to “play Christ,” knowing that he is with us and working in us, we are gradually transformed into the real thing. When we pray, the living Christ is at work beside us. As the transformation happens our awareness of our own sinfulness goes deeper than our actions but we realize the kind of person we are, our default responses are corrupt.

Very often the only way to get a quality in reality is to start behaving as if you had it already. That is why children’s games are so important. They are always pretending to be grown-ups—playing soldiers, playing shop. But all the time, they are hardening their muscles and sharpening their wits so that the pretence of being grown-up helps them to grow up in earnest.

Chapter 8 - Is Christianity hard or easy

It’s hard, but is much easier than the lazy way. Christianity consists in becoming sons of God, and looking like Christ. It is not a matter of doing the good things and not doing the bad things. We are called to give our full selves over to Christ, but instead we choose the impossible task of obeying Christ while trying to hold onto the world.

The Christian way is different: harder, and easier. Christ says ‘Give me All. I don’t want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You.’

Chapter 9 - Counting the cost

Many people come to Christ seeking help for one vice that’s troubling them, but Christ does not transform us only one way. Once he gets started, he’s going for the full transform. WE don’t yet know the full depth of what we will be but it will be glorious. All of the trials and challenges we face are shaping us into this.

It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.

Chapter 10 - Nice People or New Men

Should the Christian always be nicer than the non-Christian? This is not the right way to look at it. The Christian will always be a better version of the same persona as a non-Christian. A lot of argumentation about the importance of free will and choosing to follow God. We must not confuse natural disposition, which itself is a gift of God, with holiness.

It is not enough to be ‘nice,’ to be merely old Adam dressed up in a new suit of clothes. The New Man in Christ, the new creation, is what matters.

Chapter 11 - The New Man

Christianity as the huge next step in the evolution of man, but not really evolution but a giant leap, and completely unlike evolution in that it’s by the will of the person being changed. During this transformation, we become more ourselves than we’ve ever been.

To become new men means losing what we now call ‘ourselves.’ Out of ourselves, into Christ, we must go.

Lewis, Till We Have Faces

Wed, 14 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0000

A faceless void, beheld by all
Walking in a world, to self enthralled
Where love abounds, hate is enflamed
And true hope secured, the end of our shame
It’s impossible to read rightly, unless you know
That love which shines brightly, radiant glow
We see through a glass darkly, and thus in part
But we will see starkly, with true face and heart

Reader’s Note: Pair this book (either before or after) with The Four Loves, which Lewis published a few years later. These two books complement each other very well as Till We Have Faces is effectively a fictional illustration of so many themes expounded in The Four Loves.

It’s been a couple weeks since I finished this book, and I’m still trying to process what to make of it. It was an engaging enough story that kept me interested throughout, although I felt it dragged on at times in the middle. However, as I finished and pondered it was clear that the middle was important towards the whole. It helped that I had read an introductory essay first to give me my bearings as I proceeded through the book.

Honestly, I feel that it will take another reading to digest some of the deeper themes at work here and fully appreciate what Lewis is doing. Several elements resonated:

The four loves: as mentioned, the characters in this work so profoundly draw out the beauty and the perversions of the various types of natural and divine love.
Suffering and Job - while not a parallel work, I definitely caught hints of Job’s troubles and his charges against God, especially when it came to Orual’s airing of her true complaints.
Self-deception - Lewis captured beautifully the way that we so easily deceive ourselves and justify our actions after the fact.

Some of my initial reticence with the book was its lack of a clearly discernable Christian framework. Although certainly you catch glimpses of a Christian view of reality with the god on the mountain, the story never quite leaves its pagan form. Once I realized my mistake of trying to read this as Christian allegory, rather than what it is - a retelling of a pagan myth to portray reality as understood by a Christian mind but still in the form and from the perspective of a pre-Christian myth - then I could begin to appreciate some of the subtle and overt imagery throughout. Lewis is not trying to write a fictional gospel tract, but tell a good story, and if in that telling he awakens something in the reader’s soul that sends him seeking after, or going into deeper worship of, the true God, then it will have accomplished a good end.

Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Wed, 14 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0000

The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis serves the purpose of challenging Christians of varying levels of maturity to greater fidelity, holiness, and perseverance in the midst of life’s toils, temptations, and trials. Certainly, there is the understanding that many of the temptations we face are the result of the works of spiritual darkness, which are indeed present in our world, although I suspect Lewis would acknowledge that many of the things that lead us astray are driven by our own lusts and sinful habits and don’t need much help from an external force.

To that end, the book is effective to remind, convict, and arm Christians for the task ahead. Overall, I found much to be convicted and encouraged by. To ignore the enemy’s methods and our own sinful inclinations is to our own peril.

Chapter 1

To keep a patient from falling into grace, distract him with “real life” and ensure he avoids lingering on the significant questions of meaning, purpose, etc.

Chapter 2

New converts still have the old habits working against them, and the temptation to disappointment as they encounter real Christians and the hard work of real life as a believer saved by grace.

Chapter 3

Poisoning our relationships and fruitfulness with others by amplifying their faults and minimizing our own.

Focusing on the inner state of mind, but without coming to terms with what’s really there:

Keep his mind on the inner life… Encourage this. Keep his mind off the most elementary duties by directing it to the most advanced and spiritual ones. Aggravate that most useful human characteristic, the horror and neglect of the obvious. (11)

Chapter 4

Distract from prayer at all costs, misdirect to “prayer-like” activities and a preoccupation with feelings.

Focus on the feelings prayer produces:

Teach them to estimate the value of each prayer by their success in producing the desired feelings; and never let them suspect how much success or failure of that kind depends on whether they are well or ill, fresh or tired, at the moment.(17)

Chapter 5

Better than the terror of war is to keep them from thinking of their mortality at all.

And how disastrous for us is the continual remembrance of death which war enforces. One of our best weapons, contented worldliness, is rendered useless. In wartime, not even a human can believe that he is going to live forever. (24)

Chapter 6

Stir up anxieties about the future, which prevent focus on present duty and trusting in present provision. Direct malice towards those nearby and charity towards those remote.

There is nothing like suspense and anxiety for barricading a human’s mind against the Enemy. He wants men to be concerned with what they do; our business is to keep them thinking about what will happen to them. (25)

The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbours whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary. (28)

Chapter 7

Better in the modern age to keep them not believing in demons. Lead into extremes in political causes such that religion becomes simply a part of the cause. Religiously devoted to something else.

When the humans disbelieve in our existence we lose all the pleasing results of direct terrorism and we make no magicians. On the other hand, when they believe in us, we cannot make them materialists and sceptics. At least, not yet. I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, a belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy. (31)

This portrayal of science as sneaking in magic through the backdoor, and resulting in what ultimately amounts to demon worship is prescient.

Chapter 8

The dark night of the soul is actually a path towards deeper fellowship with God by means of obedience freely chosen.

Chapter 9

Exploit the spiritually dry times by tempting to sensuality, or by assuming that the earlier time was just a phase.

You are much more likely to make your man a sound drunkard by pressing drink on him as an anodyne when he is dull and wary than by encouraging him to use it as a means of merriment among his friends when he is happy and expansive. (44)

On the other hand, be careful, because pleasure is God’s creation:

Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy’s ground…it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. (44)

Chapter 10

Unbelieving friendships tempt to leading a double life.

Chapter 11

The laughter of joy and fun are too close to heaven, but jokes and flippancy can deaden the intellect.

Chapter 12

The most successful path is by means of small sins and distractions that deaden the soul to God and keep him at a distance.

All humans at nearly all times have some such reluctance [thinking about the Enemy]; but when thinking of Him involves facing and intensifying a whole vague cloud of half-conscious guilt, this reluctance is increased tenfold. They hate every idea that suggests him, just as men in financial embarrassment hate the very sight of a passbook. In this state your patient will not omit, but he will increasingly dislike, his religious duties. He will think about them as little as he feels he decently can beforehand, and forget them as soon as possible when they are over. (58)

In many ways, our information-dense and entertainment-driven culture has deadened us and left us with Nothing:

Nothing is very strong: strong enough to steal away a man’s best years not in sweet sins but in a dreary flickering of the mind over it knows not what and knows not why, in the gratification of curiosities so feeble that the man is only half aware of them, in drumming of fingers and kicking of heals, in whistling tunes that he does not like, or in the long dim labyrinth of reveries that have not even lust or ambition to give them a relish, but which, once chance association has started them, the creature is too weak and fuddled to shake off. (60)

Chapter 13

Real pleasures and real pains, the stuff that connects a man to his own soul and to his creator. Also, actively acting out repentance solidifies it.

Chapter 14

True virtue leads to an external focus on God and your neighbor, not the virtue itself. True humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.

By this virtue [Humility], as by all the others, our Enemy wants to turn the man’s attention away from self to Him, and to the man’s neighbours. (70)

The desired end of true humility:

The Enemy wants to bring the man to a state of mind in which he could design the best cathedral in the world, and know it to be the best, and rejoince in the fact, without being any more (or less) or otherwise glad at having done it than he would be if it had been done by another. (71)

Chapter 15

Living in the present is the state of mind God wants us, tending to duty and gratitude of now, not anxious for the future or dwelling in the past.

In a word, the Future is, of all things, the least like eternity. It is the most completely temporal part of time - for the Past is frozen and no longer flows, and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays. Hence the encouragement we have given to all those schemes of thought such as Creative Evolution, Scientific Humanism, or Communism, which fix men’s affections on the Future, on the very core of temporality. (76)

Chapter 16

Factions and unbelieving clergy, or clergy who are stirred and motivated by something other than faith go a long way.

What to make of his argument for Anglican parishes?

In the first place the parochial organisation should always be attacked, because, being a unity of place and not of likings, it brings people of different classes and psychology together in the kind of unity the Enemy desires. The congregational principle, on the other hand, makes each church into a kind of club, and finally, if all goes well, into a coterie, or faction (81).

Chapter 17

The other side of gluttony being the picky, or delicate consumer, with the same result that their mind is always on their food.

But what do quantities matter, provided we can use a human belly and palate to produce querulousness, impatience, uncharitableness, and self-concern? (87)

Chapter 18

Convincing that “being in love” is requisite for marriage ensures that the institution is undermined. Love is a unity in plurality, the good of one to be the good of the other.

They regard the intention of loyalty to a partnership for mutual help, for the preservation of chastity, and for the transmission of life, as something lower than a storm of emotion. (97)

Chapter 19-20

Driving lusts towards a poor marriage is an easy way of inducing misery.

…our best weapon - the belief of ignorant humans, that there is no hope of getting rid of us except by yielding.

The fashions and tastes of the day can be very handy for undesirable marriages:

The aim is to guide each sex away from those members of the other with whom spiritually helpful, happy, and fertile marriages are most likely. Thus we have now for many centuries triumphed over nature to the extent of making certain secondary characteristics of the male (such as the beard) disagreeable to nearly all the females…As regards the male taste we have varied a good deal. At one time we have directed it to the statuesque and aristocratic type of beauty… At another, we have selected an exaggeratedly feminine type, faint and languishing…At present…we now teach men to like women whose bodies are scarcely distinguishable from those of boys. (107)

Chapter 21

A sense that I own my time can lead to great frustration and sin, despite how ridiculous the idea.

You must therefore zealously guard in his mind the curious assumption ‘my time is my own.’…The man can neither make, nor retain, one moment of time; it all comes to him by pure gift; he might as well regard the sun and moon as his chattels. (112)

Likewise, most types of ownership work this way.

The humans are always putting up claims to ownership which sound equally funny in Heaven and in Hell and we must keep them doing so. Much of the modern resistance to chastity comes from men’s belief that they ‘own’ their bodies - those vast and perilous estates, pulsating with the energy that made the worlds, in which they find themselves without their consent and from which they are ejected at the pleasure of Another! It is as if a royal child whom his father has places, for love’s sake, in titular command of some great province, under the real rule of wise counsellors, should come to fancy he really owns the cities… (113)

Chapter 22

The devils despise the fact that the Lord is in favor of pleasures and fills his whole world with them.

He’s a hedonist at heat. All those fasts and vigils and stakes and crosses are only a facade. Or only like foam on the seashore. Out at sea, out in His sea, there is pleasure, and more pleasure. (118)

Chapter 23

Encouraging corruption of a faith that cannot be removed, but distracting via historical Jesus studies based on conjecture and ignoring one part of the text for another.

Chapter 24

Use spiritual pride to trap a man into preferring the inner ring of Christians and considering himself apart of it by right.

Chapter 25

The horror of the same old thing - enshrine the desire for novelty. Likewise, fashion to steer the masses to focus on exactly the wrong thing than what is needed.

This demand is valuable in various ways. In the first place it diminishes pleasure while increasing desire. The pleasure of novelty is by its very nature more subject that any other to the law of diminishing returns. And continued novelty costs money, so that the desire for it spells avarice or unhappiness or both. (137)

On using fashions to focus on the wrong thing:

Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm; a century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directly against the dangers of the mere ‘understanding’. (138)

Chapter 26

Leverage unselfishness as a means of fostering strife as each builds up resentment for how much they sacrifice for the other, disregarding true charity.

Chapter 27

Anything, even sin, that leads a man to actively pray can bring him closer to God. However, he can be willed into a false spirituality or tempted to think that his prayers don’t affect anything given God’s sovereignty.

When this or any other distraction, crosses his mind you ought to encourage him to thrust it away by sheer will power and to try to continue the normal prayer as if nothing happened; once he accepts the distraction as his present problem and lays that before the Enemy and make it the main theme of his prayers and endeavors, then so far from doing good, you have done harm. (147)

False spirituality is always to be encouraged. On the seemingly pious ground that ‘praise and communion with God is the true prayer,’ humans can often be lured into direct disobedience to the Enemy who (in His usual, flat, commonplace, uninteresting way) has definitely told them to pray for their daily bread and the recovery of their sick. (148)

Don’t worry about old books containing wisdom against this:

Only the learned read old books and we have now so dealt with the learned that they are of all men the least likely to acquire wisdom by doing so. We have done this by inculcating the Historical Point of view. The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it’s true. (150)

Chapter 28

Once a man is dead, he is out of reach of falling. Better to keep him alive long enough to temp into prosperity or worldliness. War and such drive a man to prayer and faith.

Chapter 29

Courage is the king of virtue, and while it can be distorted, it is only given by the Creator. However, cowardice is very valuable, likewise hate, which can lead to shame and despair. Key is the act of cowardice not the fear.

There is here a cruel dilemma before us. If we promoted justice and charity among men, we should be playing directly into the Enemy’s hands; but if we guide them to the opposite behavior, this sooner or later produces (for He permits it to produce) a war or revolution, and the undisguisable cowardice or courage that awakes thousands of men from moral stupor (161)

One of God’s motivations for creating a dangerous world, to bring moral issues into focus:

He sees as well as you do that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means, at the highest point of reality. (161)

Chapter 30

Have him hope that his sufferings will end shortly so he will not commit to patient endurance. Use the sufferings to ignite an emotional attack on the faith.

Whatever he says, let his inner resolution be not to bear whatever comes to him, but to bear it for a reasonable period - and let the reasonable period be shorter than the trial is likely to last. It need not be much short; in attack on patience, chastity, and fortitude, the fun is to make the man yield just when relief was almost in sight. (167)

Leithart, The Kingdom and the Power

Sat, 10 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0000

This modest-sized (just over 200 page) book packs a punch and is a must-read, as relevant today as when it was originally written 30 years ago (recently republished in 2023). Leithart covers a lot of ground here and insightfully diagnoses issues that plague the western church. Don’t ignore the endnotes, either, as they are rich.

Introduction

1. What is the Kingdom of God

Cautioning against identifying Christianity too closely with American nationalism:

But it is precisely this history that makes the “we ambiguous.” For some American Christians, Neuhaus’s qualified appreciation of American influence verges on treason. Christianity’s profound influence on American life has made it easy for American Christians to think that this nation is something more than a relative force for good. Throughout history some have seen America as peculiarly a “Redeemer Nation,” with a global and even apocalyptic mission. As historian Sydney Mead put it, some have viewed America as “the primary agent of God’s meaningful activity in history.” Such a view contradicts the biblical teaching that the church is God’s primary agent in history. (9)

On how the cultural problem is worse than many imagine:

Our cultural crisis, in short, goes much deeper than moral majoritarians suspect. It is not as if the top floors of the edifice of Christendom need some remodeling. The entire building has collapsed, and now, if it is to be rebuilt at all, it must be rebuilt from the ground floor. The problem is not that America as been the site of a coup that can be corrected by a counter-coup. America is the site of a death, and the only known antidote for death is resurrection. (11)

Three ways Jesus revolutionized the world (19-20):

Revolution in the heavens - Satan has been cast down and Jesus has inherited the nations by his life, death, and resurrection.
Revolution at the sanctuary - Opening the way to the true heavenly sanctuary
Revolution on earth - The establishment of a restored Israel made of Jews and Gentiles with the mission of making disciples of all nations.

What is the kingdom? The Kingdom is where the body Christ is present (physically, sacramentally, or ecclesiastically) (21)

This book is not a summons to retreat from the world, but a rally cry to conservative Christians to engage the world - not as isolated Christians or as an interest group but as the church. It is the burden of this book to stress the primacy of holy war, which, being translated, means the primacy of the Church. (22)

2. I saw Satan Fall

On the original creation mandate:

God commanded two people, a man and a woman, to be king and queeen of the whole creation and toproduce a worldwide race of kings and queens to rule the creation. They and their children were to learn more and more about God’s good creation, to discover ever new uses of the things God had made, to bring the world more and more completely into service to God and man. Over time, they were to build from the raw materials of creation a glorious temple-city on earth as a replica and image of the heavenly city of God…The life of Adam and Eve displays human history in miniature. Human history began in the Garden with Adam and Eve worshipping God, and will end with the church gathered in a glorious temple-city. Worship is the alpha and the omega of human life and history. (25, 28)

On the Old Testament types of the redeemer:

“Types” are like sonograms, the pictures taken of babies in utero. When you look at a sonogram, you can just barely make out the fuzzy shape of a baby. On the right is something that looks like a hand, and on the left something that resembles a foot. Only someone with more expertise can determine the baby’s sex. (34)

Jesus fulfills types of David and Joshua’s conquest by waging a holy war against the serpent.

G.K. Chesterton was font of pointing out that there is often more good theology and ethics in fairy tales than in some thick books of Systematic theology. In “Sleeping Beauty,” we have a wonderful picture of the work of Christ on behalf of his church. In Walth Disney’s animated version of that tale, Prince Philip climbs a jagged black mountain, cuts through deadly thorns with his sword, and grapples with the dragon-witch to rescue his beloved. A more fitting picture of Jesus’ work can hardly be imagined. Jesus appears in the Gospels not as an oriental guru - a proto-Ghandian proclaiming love and nonviolence - but as a princely Love, passionately willing to suffer all things to rescue his Bride from her captor. (35)

3. One Like the Son of Man

While many (e.g. dispensational premillennialists) are waiting for the prophecies of a restored Davidic kingdom to be fulfilled, the New Testament teaches that Jesus came and established his kingdom during his first advent. Citing Psalm 2 and Psalm 110, especially, the book of Acts says that the promised coming of a universal Davidic king was fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus. “For two millennia Jesus has occupied the throne of David, and He is seated there today.” David sat upon the “throne of the Lord” as a shadow, but Christ sits on it in reality. (45-48)

On a dominion greater than the angels:

Adam’s dominion over the animals was thus a type, a mere shadow of the Last Adam’s dominion over bestial men, principalities, and powers, life and death, angels, Satan and demons, things present and things to come, and every other creature. This is not to say that earthly dominion is in any way cancelled out by the coming of Christ. The Bible assumes throughout that human beings are royal creatures, created to rule on earth over the lower creation. Jesus’ heavenly dominion does not cancel or replace the earthly dominion of the First Adam, but rather fulfills it, completes it, beings it to maturity. Adam’s earthly dominion was the alpha point of human dominion. Jesus reveals the omega point: we shall judge angels (1 Cor. 6:3). (53)

He is universal lawgiver:

Every facet and every moment of the life of every person are lived out under the dominion of the last Adam. Our duty is to acknowledge His dominion, demands, and call others to do the same. (55)

He is universal judge:

Christ’s control is as comprehensive as His authority. He is Head over all things (Eph. 1:21-23). It is unbiblical to limit Christ’s reign to “ruling in the hearts of His people.” He does indieed rule in the hearts of his people, but He also rules the heart of Pharaoh. (57)

However, this is not always immediately manifest in the written lives of history:

The more you read of the lives of past and present heroes of the faith, the more you realize their lives often seem to be little more than a tissue woven of frustration and failure. We know by faith in God’s promise that this is not the case. (58)

Christ has been given as head over all things “for the church”:

If Christ is finally to bring His people to the heavenly kingdom and to accomplish His historical purposes for and in them, He must not only rule over the church, but also defeat the enemies that are arrayed against the church. If His rule over the church is to be effective, He must also rule all things. IF Christ is to save the young man in rural CHina, He must control the bureaucrat who grants the missionary his visa. If Christ is to take the gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch, He must also govern the persecutors who force Philip to flee Jerusalem (Acts 8:4-8, 26-40). If He is to bring Theodore of Tarsus to Canterbury, He must rule the Arab armies in Syria.(62)

4. In the Heavenlies

Christians have caused a lot of problems when they confuse the reign of the saints with violent rule and worldly power, but it’s no less real:

Though it is indeed quite sensible to keep one’s distance from violent religious movements, too many Christians go to the opposite extreme of denying that Christians should or do rule in any sense at all. Against this, the Bible unequivocally teaches that the reign of the Messiah includes the rule and dominion of His people. IT is entirely biblical to say that those who are united to Christ share with Him in His reign over heaven and earth. He is supremely crowned with kingly glory and honor (Heb. 2:9), but through His suffering He has also brought many sons to glory (Heb 2:10). (67)

The nature of the saints’ unique dominion:

True as all this is, the dominion that Christ gives His people is not first of all cultural, technological, or political. The saints’ unique dominion is not of an earthly character. To echo James, even demons can have a form of dominion (James 2:19). But the scriptures teach that all who are “in Christ” have an authority denied to all those who are outside Christ; only those who are “in Christ” are seated on heavenly thrones. Only those in Christ have access to the real Inner Ring of power and privilege. (72)

Quoting Augustine, on how the barbarian invasions of Rome benefited the Christians:

For even in the likeness of the sufferings [of righteous and wicked], there remains an unlikeness in the sufferers; and though exposed to the same anguish, virtue and vice are not the same thing. For as the same fire causes gold to glow brightly, and chaff to smoke; and under the same flail the straw is beaten small, while the grain is cleansed; and as the lees are not mixed with oil, though squeezed out of the vat by the same pressure, so the same violence of affliction proves, purges, clarifies the good, but damns, ruins, exterminates the wicked. (77)

In Christ, who has all dominion, the suffering we experience (along with everything else) becomes indicators of God’s favor:

Because we are in Christ, all our experiences - even those which are evil in themselves - become so many pathways to God, so many tokens of His love and favor, so many signposts along our pilgrimage toward His eternal kingdom. (78)

We should be cautious about making spiritual things too “spiritual”:

We must be careful, however, not to misunderstand the nature of heavenly things. In the Bible, heaven is not an airy-fairy, ethereal place. C.S. Lewis was closer to the truth when, in the Great Divorce, he depicted heaven as more solid than earth, not less so. Angels are terrifying creatures and meeting an angel is a life-shattering experience (Judg. 6:22; 13:22). (79)

5. The Torn Veil

The misplaced focus of private worship over corporate gathering, which the Bible gives prominence to:

Many evangelical Christians today think that the really important kind of worship is private and individual. This notion is perhaps one o fthe definitive elements of evangelical Christianity. Many more books are written about deepening one’s individual walk with the Lord than about worshipping God in the assembly of His people. Much more effort is spent thinking about and discussing the structure of one’s “quiet time” than considering questions of the Church’s liturgy. (90)

On the assembly and the true sanctuary:

Practically, then, Christians enter the sanctuary in a special way when they assemble as the church. It is in public worship that the Spirit-glory of God descends, as the triune God meets with His people and offers Himself to them. Jesus, after all, promised to be present in a special way not where one man calls upon Him, but where two or three gather in His name (Matt. 18:20). (92)

How the Bible resists our attempts to approach it with scientific precision:

The more you study the Bible, the more you will find that it cannot be forced into this mold. Ideas and symbols the Bible meld together, overlap, and stretch out in a thousand different directions. THis is not to say that the Bible is irrational or unscientific, or that we cannot make meaningful distinctions. But a moder reader cannot escape the sense that the Bible speaks in a different language than he learned in “Chem. Lab” or Philosophy 101. As theologian Vern S. Poythress has noted, the biblical world view acknowledges the reality of “fuzzy boundaries.” (93)

Quoting Geerhardus Vos on identifying the kingdom of heaven and the assembly are identical:

Peter receives the keys of the kingdom to bind or loose on earth. What he does in the administration of the kingdom here below will be recognized in heaven. Now this promise immediately following the declaration concerning Peter as the foundation rock of the church, it becomes necessary to assume that in Jesus’ view these two are identified. The force of this will be felt by observing that in the two statements made the figure is essentially the same, viz., that of the house. First the house is represented as in the process of building, Peter as the foundation, then the same house appears as completed and Peter as invested with the keys for administering its affairs. It is plainly excluded that the house should mean one thing in the first statement and another in the second. (105)

Leithart adds the helpful addition that the house is both the church and kingdom and also the New Temple.

6. The King’s Table

The conditions of entering the kingdom are regeneration, adoption, forgiveness, and justification. All of these are envisioned in baptism:

All these conditions for entrance into the kingdom are symbolized and sealed in baptism. Those who receive the sign of baptism are legally entitled to receiv the inheritance of the kingdom. We are baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection, which were for our justification (Rom. 6:1-11). By the Spirit, baptism also seals to us new life (John 1:33; 3:5; Acts 11:16) and cleansing (Matt. 3:1-11), and clothes us with Christ (Gal. 3:27). Baptism is a seal of our adoption. Through baptism, God seals us as sons, co-heirs with Christ of His kingdom. Having crossed through the baptismal waters, we enter the promised sanctuary land to enjoy its bounty. (114)

Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes points to the fact that He is the promised Messianic King:

Feeding the people was a royal act, not a magic act. When Jesus fed five thousand men reclining on the green grass, He was showing Himself to be the promised David, the royal Shepherd who would lead his flock to pasture (Mk. 6:30-44; see Ps. 23:5; Matt. 14:13-21; 15:32-39; Lk 9:11-17). The royal significance of these meals was not lost on the Jewish people. After one meal, “they tried to make him king” (John 6:15). We should understand Jesus’ association with the publicans and sinners in the same way. He showed His royal clemency by eating and drinking with the socially rejected. (120)

7. After the Beast

8. The People of the Kingdom

The church and the kingdom:

The church, moreover, was no afterthought. One of Jesus’ main aims in His first advent was to gather a people, to begin building His church, His worshipping assembly (Matt. 16:13-20), to gather his little flock (Luke 12:2). And He intended this people to be organized as an institution, with designated rulers and definite procedures, a particular form of worship and life (Matt. 16:13-20; 18:15-20). The erection of the church was on of the essential features of the new order of things that Jesus called the kingdom of God. (143)

On how the visible and invisible distinction is overused:

Yet, in the Bible the “visible” church is addressed as if it were identical to the “invisible” church. The “visible” church is described as the spotless virgin bride of Christ, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the harmonious body of Christ (Eph. 5:25-30; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 12:4-31). When Paul addressed the Ephesian church, he addressed the whole church, not some super-spiritual elite, as the elect (Eph. 1:1-11). All members of the “visible” church were counted and treated as saints, as Christians. Besideds, as it has been said, the “visible” church is, in the last analysis, the only one we’ve got. (144)

God’s vision was for the human race to be working together in unity, but not necessarily uniformity:

Not a single megalopolis, but many earthly cities were to result - all of them diverse replicas of the infinitely rich archetypal city of God. God intended the human race to praise Him with a symphony of harmonious voices, not in a monotone. God surrounds himself with a rainbow, not a grey cloak. God, we trust, delights in Gothic architecture as well as Romanesque; He is please with baroque as well as classical music; His people were governed not only only by judges, but later by kings. Like the triune God Himself, the human race and the culture it created was to be a diversity in unity, and unity in diversity (147).

The conflict dividing the human race is radical, comprehensive, and eternal, and it appears very early.

The reason for Cain’s envy of his brother is noteworthy: the issue was worship, liturgy (Gen 4:4-5). This is always the basic issue that divides one part of the human race from the other. Cainites served and worshiped idols; Sethites worshiped the living God (Gen 4-5). As Augustine explained, the two cities are distinguished by their different objects of love - either self or God. Though the conflict among the races of the human race is comprehensive, it centers on the issue of worship.

However, even sinful men retain a desire for a unified race and city:

Men naturally hope and strive to restore the Edenic unity of the human. From the Tower of Babel to the United Nations to recent fantasies of a “New World Order,” people have expended themselves to restore the unity that sin dissolved. But sinners generally seek to improse uniformity upon one another, rather than pursuing harmony. God intended diversity, and sinners produce conflict; God intended unity under his law, and sinful men impose uniformity on each other. (148)

On the kingdom being a combination of Jews and Gentiles, and how this was missed by many:

Though astute students of the Old Testament such as Simeon recognized that the Messiah was coming as a light to the Gentiles (Luke 1:32), many in Israel apparently looked for the restoration of the national glory of the reigns of David and Solomon. It was inevitable that the early Christians, claiming to be the fulfillment of Isreal’s calling, would meet vicious opposition from the Jews. Indeed, the New Testament cannot be understood without the recognition that the church was making precisely this claim. Like the conflict between Cain and Abel and between Judah and Israel, the conflict betweenJews and Christians cenetered on a question of worhsip: SHould Jesus Christ be acknowledged and honored as Lord? (154)

Christ’s visitation on Judea in 70AD was the “coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom:”

With the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus accomplished a revolution on earth. The new people of God was separated finally and completely from the prototypical nation of Israel. During the early history of the church, the new people of God was barely distinguishable from the Jews, Christians worshiped and met at the temple (Acts 3:1, 11; 5:12); they were considered by outsiders to be a sect of Judaism, analogous to the Pharisees or Sadducees (Acts 24:14). When the temple was destroyed, the newness of the CHristian church became clear. When the old covenant types were overthrown, the new covenant realities emerged from the shadows. (157)

If the destruction of Jerusalem is see as the Lord’s divorce of adulterous Israel, how could she be restored to her husband?

Paul gives the answer in Romans 7:1-3. There the apostle writes that a woman is freed from her marriage covenant by the death of her husband. When her husband dies, she can marry another man. Paul was describing how God delivered His faithful bride from her dilemma, how God can be both Just and the Justifier of those who have faith in Jesus, how God could both divorce and remarry Israel. When Jesus Christ, the Husband of Israel, died, Israel was freed to marry with a new husband. But Jesus not only died but also roase again. He is not only the first husband, but the second as well (Rom. 7:1-4). Similarly, as we have seen, Israel herself died and rose again in the judgment of AD 70. The resurrected bride can therefor lawfully remarry her resurrected husband. (160)

9. On Earth as it is in Heaven

In some sectos of evangelical Christianity today there is a lot of talk about “building” the kingdom of God. But Jesus never talked about building the kingdom. He instead used organic images, emphasizing that the kingdom grows. Jesus’ reason for using the seed image was evidently to stress that the growth of the kingdom is God’s work. (172)

Growth of the kingdom is more than just increased church attendance. The church is called to no less than world conquest:

Her mission is to see that every human being brings every created thing into service to God, so that the Adamic commandment in both its royal and priestly dimensions is fulfilled. So the church has a mission, and what a mission! (174)

For early Christians, the cross was a sign of conquest:

Athanasius rejoiced that the gospel of the Crucified was driving away demons, turning vicious barbarians into peaceful worshipers of God. Other church fathers exulted in the triumph of the martyrs, who, like Christ, gained victory through their suffering unto death. The early Church took Jesus at his word when he said of his death, “Now judgment has come upon this world, now the ruler of this world shall be cast out” (John 12:31). (175)

The war against Satan, decisively won by Christ on the Cross is being waged through us (Rev. 12:7-17). This is not simply a spiritual battle against sin:

Battling Satan also means opposing his slaves wherever they may be found, whether in the statehouse, the corporate office, or the pulpit. As more and more people are delivered from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son, the kingdom of Satan loses power (Col. 1:13). (176)

The rule of the church over the forces of darkness is real, and has historical consequences:

Jesus came down from the Mount of transfiguration to find His disciples trying to cast out a demon - unsuccessfully. Jesus’ response is worth noting. He did not say that the disciples lacked the power to cast out demons. He did not apologize to the disciples for expecting too much. He did not excuse them in any way. On the contrary, He was angry. He placed all the blame on their unbelief and inaction. If the demon was not cast out, it was the disciples’ fault, not Jesus’ or the Spirit’s: “This kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting” (Matt 17:14-21). (178)

If things are not going as we expect them to on earth, if Satan looks to be winning, it’s not because Jesus was wrong or lied about his victory over Satan:

If Satan is alive and well on planet earth, it is because of our unbelief, our prayerlessness, our cowardice, our unwillingness to fast from the pleasures of this life. If we are entering a dark age, it is because of our lack of training in the weapons of spiritual warfare, or because be have become too enamored of carnal weapons. (179)

“If righteousness is not prevailing on earth, it is only we Christians who are to blame.”

Service is the primary means of how we wage holy war, and service in the sanctuary is the pinnacle of that.

As we exalt the heavenly king on our praises, He fights on our behalf (2 Chron. 20). It is in response to our prayers that He sends His fiery judgment to the earth (Rev. 8:3-5). Singing the imprecatory psalms, the church calls God to intervene to protect her and to destroy her enemies. When the church prays that God will not hear the prayers of her enemies (Psa 109:1-13), she closes the world off from its source of life and belssing. (182)

If the world is winning in it’s attacks, we should first consider whether we have offended the Lord, our only protector.

The world’s attacks on the church, then, are not overcome primarily by direct counterattack. The church’s furst response to legal attacks must not be legal; her first reaction to slander must not be self-defense. THe church’s first response to the world’s hostility must always and ever be abandonment of idols and repentance toward God. Her first response must always and ever be to return to exclusive devotion to her Lord. (183)

Jesus insists on and prays for unity for the one body of Christ in the world, but he have disregarded this command to our own detriment.

The contrast between Jesus’ requirements and the current state of the church is alarming. In America the church is deeply fragmented. Competition rather than love often dominates interchurch relations. The church, like Old Testament Israel, has become a mirror of the darkness of the world. Is it any wonder that the world is filled with chaos and violence? If we wish the nations to be discipled, to be brought to worship and obey King Jesus, we must diligently pursue the implications of our “one baptism.” (191)

10. Into the Political Arena

On Christians in politics, there is some truth to Luther’s point that it’s better to have a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian as a king, because no one wants to be ruled by an incompetent. That said:

The Bible does teach, however, that the God-fearing political leader is superior to his pagan counterpart as a political leader. This is true, first, in the ultimate sense that a godly political leader pleases God…Citizenship in the kingdom affects political action in more specific ways as well. In our day, for example, politicians are expected to be self-confident and to express that confidence in their campaign rhetoric. From a biblical perspective, however, such statements must be condemned as vain, prideful, and foolish…(198)

While pride comes before a fall, as seen in Nebuchadnezzar’s case, the Christian political leader should be carrying humility, Love, Kindness, Self-control, as essential political virtues. This applies to both leaders and all politically active Christians. “Our only real duty is to honor Him; if He is pleased with us, He will give us political victory (if He so wishes). (199)”

We should not draw such a firm dichotomy between faith and political action. They are not the same thing, but they are not dualistic separate, and faith can be expressed in politics.

By faith, the Old Testament saints conquered kingdoms, enforced righteousness, won military victoryies (Heb 11:32-33). It was by faith in the unseen things (Heb. 11:1) that the saints of old exercised godly political dominion. It was the Spirit of God who filled judges and kings with strength to defeat God’s enemies. The same Spirit who gives wisdom unto salvation also gave wisdom to Solomon so that he could judge and lead the people (1 Kings 3:8-9). (205)

11. Against the World for the World

The surprising manner in which Christianity triumphed in the ancient world:

Many Christians, however, abandoned all legal claims and joyfully endured and even sought martyrdom, and there is no evidence of any large-scale “Christianization” agenda. For the most part, Christians simply went about their daily tasks, gathered each Lord’s Day for worship, gave alms to the poor, and showed mercy to slaves. Out of their peacefulness, humility, joy, and mercy, a new world was born. Living with their eyes on heaven, they looked down one morning to find themselves sitting on earthly thrones. It is as cleas as can be: the church did not grasp for dominion, but remained patiently faithful and humbly received dominion. Truly, the meek inherited the earth. (215)

What is the Gospel?

Sat, 20 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0000

How do I answer the question, “What is the gospel?” Here are a couple ways.

In a 5 Minute Statement

We believe in God, the one who alone has life in himself and does not depend on anyone or anything. He is the one who designed and made the universe and everything in it, from the distant galaxies to the smallest molecules, to you and me. He is life, he is love, he is goodness, he is beauty, he is truth, purity itself and completely set apart from anything in creation.

And yet he is so overflowing with grace and so generous that he creates the world in which we live, designed and tuned for us. God created human being as the pinnacle of his creation. He made them good, perfectly designed to freely worship hum and find their deepest fulfillment in relationship with him. He made them to live in community with one another in peace and shared community of love with their creator. And he designated them to serve as kings and priests, ruling over his creation as his visible representatives.

However, instead of embracing their God-given role, our ancestors joined in rebellion against God and sought to establish their own way on their own terms. Instead of establishing their place, the result was broken worship - with humans workshipping created things rather than a creator; broken fellowship - between God and humanity and among humans themselves; and it result in distored rule, with abuse, power and corruption taking the place of wise rule. In response to this, God, who is goodness and purity itself, pronounced a judgment of death upon humanity and placed a curse on the creation itself. Since that time, every one of us has been born into this world estranged from God, estranged from one another, corrupted in our affections, and under judgment of death, both physical death of our bodies and spiritual death, our souls eternally cut off from the God who is the only source of life and joy.

But God, because of his great love for us, set in place a plan to rescue and to re-establish humanity in proper relationship to their Creator and to one another. This rescue began all the way back at the beginning, at the first rebellion, but the climax was when God himself became a human being as Jesus of Nazareth. He united himself with our life, took on our sufferings and temptations, and experienced our burdens first hand. Yet he did this without sin, that is, he lived a life in perfect communion with God and perfect love towards his fellow human beings. An yet, though he was faultless, by God’s plan and by the hands of evil men he was put to death as a criminal, condemned as a blasphemer under the law of God and as a rebel under the law of men. The Bible tells us that he suffered this death for us, willingly putting himself forward as a substitute in our place, taking upon himself the just punishment of rebellion against God while at the same time breaking the bonds of sin and death that enslaved us all.

God demonstrated this to be true when, after 3 days, he raised Jesus from the dead and sent out the royal announcement that this man is the one he has appointed to be King over a renewed creation, and that God has set a day when Jesus will return to judge the world with justice, eliminating rebellion and establishing God’s new creation.

What’s more, this king, on the basis of his sacrificial death, has extended an offer of clemency to all people, that they may be forgiven of their rebellion and graciously welcomed into his kingdom. He promised this to any who accept this offer, who renounce their allegiance to any other thing and place their trust and hope in King Jesus. Those that do will experience God’s renewing presence and will have restored worship, restored fellowship with God and humanity and the promise of a role in God’s renewed creation, service as kings and priest on his behalf. Those who are restored in Jesus will be delivered from the guilt, power, and eventually the very presence of sin, and will be set free from death itself through their own resurrection and experience the joy of life forever in communion with the one who is life and joy.

In 3 Minutes of Conversation

What is the gospel? Basically, it’s a royal announcement that the Creator God has acted in the world to put an end to evil, suffering, and death and to establish a kingdom of peace and justice on the earth. Now, you might object that it certainly doesn’t appear to have worked, so we should probably just end the conversation right there. But hear me out, one key detail is that God intends to populate this kingdom with human beings. If you rid the world of every person whose selfishness, misdirected passions, or other ills contributes in some way to evil, suffering, and death in the world, you will quickly end up with an empty world.

And if it has been that way since our ancestors, who did have a kingdom without evil, suffering, and death, chose to go their own way and joined in a rebellion against their gracious creator. Ever since, the world has hung under a cloud of judgment and each one of us comes into this world alienation from God and from each other, still seeking to make our own way. And hanging over every head is the awareness that death awaits us, whether 5 decades from now or 5 minutes from now. What may not be on every mind, but is still a stark reality nonetheless, is that a death of one alienated from God is a soul eternally cut off from the God who is the only source of life and joy.

So, this is the mess we’re in, and the first thing that God has done to clean it up is to address our estrangement from him. That is, after all, at the root of the other ills that plague us, God kicked off this rescue operation way back at the first rebellion, but its climax, and what we so cheerfully call the good news, was when God himself became a human being as Jesus of Nazareth. He shows us what it was to live a life in perfect fellowship with God and perfect love for human beings.

Here you have the one faultless person that’s ever lived, and what happens? He was condemned by men as a blasphemer under God’s law and as a rebel under human law and gruesomely executed. But this did not catch God by surprise. It was the plan all along. The Bible tells us that Jesus willingly put himself forward as a substitute in our place, taking the punishment that was due to each one of us for our continued rebellion against him. This was a supreme act of love by the very God we rejected.

So far death, but 3 days later, the living God raised Jesus from the dead, declaring to all that the chains of sin and death had been broken. This Jesus, is God’s anointed King to rule over a renewed world and a day has been set when he will judge the world with justice, eliminating rebellion, and establishing God’s new creation.

Now this is what makes the gospel good news for rebels like you and me - as a result of Jesus’ sacrificial death, an offer of forgieness has gone out to all people, and if you accept it and reject any other allegiance other than to King Jesus, he promises you a gracious welcome in this kingdom and God’s renewing presence to deliver you from the evil in your own heart. And you will be set free from death itself through your own resurrection and experience the joy of life forever in communion with the one who is life and joy.

Psalm 4

Tue, 16 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0000

In the darkness, in the pain
In the hail storm and the rain
All around me, fear surrounds me
To you I cry once again

Your faithfulness, always true
My righteousness comes from you
Prayers go up, your grace comes down
By your breath all is renewed

Why, art work of God, must you
Pillage and love all untrue
Like grasping at the rising smoke
It escapes out of the flew

Instead, the path set before you is clear,
Fear God, forsake sin, and to him draw near,
As you lay down to sleep at night, speak truth,
And when you wake, trust the Lord, hold him dear

The final sacrifice, offering of Christ,
Was the real price for us to be made right
So our very life we offer in praise
And we walk in trust and follow his light

The peace that comes from God above
Is worth a thousand worlds of love
Many are happy to prosper
But God’s Spirit rests as a dove

Psalm 3

Mon, 15 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Enemies hold Zion
Cornered by a lion
Danger does everywhere abound
Where is hope to be found?

And yet with head held high
I lift my voice and cry
The answer arrives - rest secure
The LORD reigs, his word sure

I flee, but not in fear
My God, is ever near
His judgment is swift and complete
My foes he’ll strike on the cheek

Who is on the LORD’s side?
With our Captain we ride
The darkness lifts, heaven’s light shines
Grace from our king divine

Psalm 2

Sun, 14 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Listen: Reign (Psalm 2)

Your browser does not support the audio element.

At the bonds of righteousness, they chaff
The shackles of justice they long to break
The nations are yearning, the people are burning
To be free of the pain in which sinful souls ache

“Destroy the sun, that it might not give light!
Let darkness prevail, or we’ll be consumed by day bright.”
Their Creator and Lord, taking the uproar
Laughs at the anger, and vain attempts to fight.

His anger is real, and his wrath is kindled,
“You claim to set them free, but instead you have swindled”
“My king is now in place, the sovereign Lord of grace,
On my hill he reigns, and his kingdom will not dwindle.”

Let me recount what the ruler of heaven has to say:
“My son, the King, begotten this very day!
Your inheritance secure, to the very ends of the world, Your justice shall prevail, and your right will hold sway.”

So give ear and act, you subordinate kings,
Acknowledge this fact and kiss the blessed ring
Of the potentate of all, to whome every knee will fall,
Before the skies turn black, and righteous judgment he brings.

The one of whome we speak is no arrogant monarch,
The same was born a baby weak, when the angels said “Hark”
Jesus is his name, and from age to age the same,
He a refuge for the eweak, who shelter in him as their Ark.

Reinke, 12 Ways Your Phone is Changing You

Mon, 01 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0000

This book’s self-help title conceals a thoughtful, broadly researched reflection on the impact our smartphones are having on our spiritual, physical, emotional, and intellectual lives. The world will never be the same, and it is not possible to put the genie back in the bottle, but it is possible to consider how we are being shaped and prayerfully take real steps to walk faithfully with our own weaknesses and callings, treating the smartphone as one more thing we must use with wisdom. While Reinke is fundamentally a technological optimist and does not follow those who would advocate a strategic retreat, he does acknowledge that there is a need (collectively) for some people who are brave enough and well-suited to be “digital monks.” These people are able to speak to the rest of us from outside the matrix, and to challenge practices and patterns that we may unwittingly adopt. I think this is right and helpful, and also believe that social media has nearly an equal size impact as the smartphone itself, and Christians would be served to consider/reconsider their use of such platforms. Again complete abstention may not be right, as the Christian can play a leavening role even in those contexts, but wisdom is needed, and Reinke provides some helpful reflects as to what kinds of things we should think through.

Quotes

So here’s an exercise to help ground our self-perception. Once a day, set your phone down for a moment, hold out your right hand, palm out and fingers to the sky, and imagine the timeline of history reaching a mile to your left and an eternity to your right. Your time on earth intersects roughly the width of your hand (give or take). Nothing puts social media and smartphone habits into context like the blunt reality of our mortality. Let it sink in a bit. Feel the brevity of life, and it will make you fully alive. (698)

God created us in order to shower his gifts over our lives, beginning with the natural wonders of breath, sunshine, food, water, rain, beaches, and mountains. As we receive these gifts (and many others), we stop at key moments to respond to him with joyful thanks. He must break the power of sin for this gratitude to work properly in our lives, but when it does, we are given the gift of God-centered thankfulness to embrace his natural order, to receive all of his cosmic wonders, to enjoy the “thickness” of his material gifts, and to delight in our friends and spouses—receiving from God our entire existence: our lives, our lots, our souls, our bodies, our biological genders, and his astonishing but unblushing design for human sexuality and procreation. (1559)

“Loneliness is the nucleus of psychiatry.” He also wrote, “If loneliness didn’t exist, we could reasonably assume that psychiatric illnesses would not occur either.”2 To these stunning quotes, theologian Peter Leithart adds this spiritual interpretation: “Humans connect to other humans at so basic a level that when we disconnect, our souls shatter into a thousand little pieces.” (2065)

As technology improves, machines replace people and automation replaces interaction. Street vendors gave way to vending machines. Fresh milk deliveries gave way to dairy products preserved in refrigerators. Bankers gave way to ATMs. Two hundred years ago, laborers were personally acquainted with their clients. In today’s technological society, many laborers work in remote locations, in industrial or business parks, serving faceless clients or nameless consumers from whom they are separated geographically or by a very long production chain. (2089)

The smartphone is causing a social reversal: the desire to be alone in public and never alone in seclusion. We can be shielded in public and surrounded in isolation, meaning we can escape the awkwardness of human interaction on the street and the boredom of solitude in our homes. Or so we think….So as Christians, we push back our phones in the morning—in order to protect our solitude so that we can know God and so that we can reflect him as his children. And we push back our phones during the day—in order to build authentic eye-to-eye trust with the people in our lives and in order to be sharpened by hard relationships. Without these two guards in place, our displacedness dominates, isolation shelters us, we can find ourselves becoming more and more lonely, and our gospel mission will eventually stall out. (2129-2210)

“Even if we’re just casually chatting, at heart that conversation is either a way for me to keep you at a distance, or a way to build a bridge between us. Small talk can be saying: ‘I don’t want to know you, and I don’t want you to know me,’ so I’m going to keep it light, as quick as possible, and see you later. Or, small talk can be a way to say, ‘I care about you and I’d like to get to know you.’ We might start by talking about football, or the weather—but it’s heading somewhere more honest,” he says. “Our small talk is going to be judged by God for its deeper intentionality.” (3210)

C. S. Lewis called it the “Nothing” strategy in his Screwtape Letters. It is the strategy that eventually leaves a man at the end of his life looking back in lament: “I now see that I spent most of my life in doing neither what I ought nor what I liked.” This “Nothing” strategy is “very strong: strong enough to steal away a man’s best years, not in sweet sins, but in a dreary flickering of the mind over it knows not what and knows not why, in the gratification of curiosities so feeble that the man is only half aware of them . . . or in the long, dim labyrinth of reveries that have not even lust or ambition to give them a relish, but which, once chance association has started them, the creature is too weak and fuddled to shake off.” (3344)

Christ in Christmas

Sat, 16 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Listen: Christ in Christmas

Your browser does not support the audio element.

(to the tune of “White Christmas”)

I’m clinging to Christ this Christmas.
The holy one we need to know.
Who made the stars to glisten, and angels listen,
And who dealt death the final blow.

I’m clinging to Christ this Christmas.
With every Christmas card I write,
“May your days be merry and bright,
And may all your Christmases have Christ!”

I’m clinging to Christ this Christmas.
Who made my sin as white as snow.
The son of David, faithful savior,
Sent from heaven’s radiant glow.

I’m clinging to Christ this Christmas,
With every Christmas card I write.
“May your days be merry and bright,
And may all your Christmases have Christ!”

Mark 13

Mon, 06 Nov 2023 13:35:00 +0000

Mark 13 (ESV)

The question

1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” 3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”

Notes

Many have noted the progression of Jesus from within the temple, to leaving the temple, to sitting on the mountain opposite the temple parallels with Ezekiel 11 vision of the glory of YHWH departing the temple prior to the destruction brought about by the Babylonians.
It’s important not to miss the focus of the question - Jesus has just predicted that this marvelous temple complex, the revered and holy site, would be completely destroyed. They want to know when and how to be ready for it. They are primarily asking for signs to look out for so they can be ready.
What do you make of the question here as compared with the parallel in Matthew 24? Do the disciples connect the destruction of the Temple with end of the age and the return of Christ? Why might they do that?
- Is there an allusion in v4 w/ συντελεῖσθαι to Dan. 9:24 and 12:7? If so, that might justify the supposition that the disciples connected the destruction of the temple with the end of the age. This would align with Matthew’s form of the question - “when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?”
- However, we shouldn’t press the disciples questions in Matthew too far. Seeing as they have had a hard time even understanding that he was to be taken away with them, we can’t presume that they would know enough eschatological timeline to ask 3 nuanced questions. More likely, the thrust of their question is “when will this destruction happen and presumably what is the sign to expect preceding your being received as Messianic king, and ushering in the age to come?”
- The Temple is the center of their whole world and talk of the destruction of it must be the complete end and the inauguration of the age to come.
- It does seem to me, as we’ll see, that Jesus intends to lead his disciples to draw a distinction between these two events.

Intertextual Links

Not one stone:
- Luke 19:41–44 “As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.””
  - Isa 29:3; Jer. 6:6; Eze 4:2; 26:8
Mount of Olives:
- Ezekiel 11:22–24 “Then the cherubim, with the wheels beside them, spread their wings, and the glory of the God of Israel was above them. The glory of the Lord went up from within the city and stopped above the mountain east of it. The Spirit lifted me up and brought me to the exiles in Babylonia in the vision given by the Spirit of God. Then the vision I had seen went up from me,”
  - Zech 14:4 -The questions:
- Matthew 24:3 “As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end (συντέλεια) of the age?””
  - Dan. 12:1-6;
- Luke 21:7 ““Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?””

The Answer

Not Yet

5 And Jesus began to say to them, “See that no one leads you astray. 6 Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. 7 And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet. 8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains. 9 “But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them. 10 And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations. 11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. 12 And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. 13 And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Notes

If you asked your average man on the street (or in the church foyer) what are the biggest signs that the end is near, what would they reply?
The disciples ask for a sign; Jesus first response are the not-signs, the things that must happen before but are not themselves harbingers of the end. “The end” in the context is most naturally the end of which the disciples were inquiring - the Temple. Even if the “end” refers to the return of Christ, the point is that these are things not to be taken in by.
The things not to be deceived or disturbed by:
- False Messiahs,
- Wars,
- Earthquakes,
- Famines,
- Persecutions,
These things will characterized the time before the Roman war and have characterized a great part of the church age since then. These are not signs of the end but the necessary birth pains of the age to come. Do not be deceived or disturbed by them.
Jesus prepares his disciples for facing opposition, both formal persecution and betrayal by loved ones. They will face deception from others and temptation under persecution. - What in this text makes it clear we’re still very much focused on the disciples and the first century here?
- v9 - councils and synagogues - these point us to a first century fulfillment because after 70AD, the councils and synagogues ceased to be operational as a vehicle of judgment
- That we’re very much focused on the disciples here can be reinforced by the fact that Matthew’s exact parallel to v9-13 is found in Matt. 10:16-23, during his commissioning and sending of the disciples. v.23 of that passage strikingly ends with - 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. - Which we’ll come back to a little later.
The emphasis is that the persecution before rulers is a means of bringing the testimony of Jesus to all. It brings to mind the book of Acts, with Peter before the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, Paul in numerous places and ultimately before Festus, Herod, and to Rome to appeal to Caesar. c.f. Col 1:6 “even as the gospel is bearing fruit in all the world.” and 1:23 “the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven” and Romans 1:8 “your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world”.
- Acts 4:1-18; 5:17-40 (synagogues); before the Sanhedrin
- 12:1; 23:24; 24:27 (governors and kings)
Jesus’ teaching here is echoed throughout the NT - Do not marvel at the trial you face as this is what we are destined for, but God is with us in it, and carry out his purposes through it.
In v12, Jesus draws on language from Micah 7:6 in describing betrayal of loved ones. The whole passage of Micha 7:2-10 is evocative and worth reading in this context:
- Micah 7:2-10 - The godly has perished from the earth, and there is no one upright among mankind; they all lie in wait for blood, and each hunts the other with a net. Their hands are on what is evil, to do it well; the prince and the judge ask for a bribe, and the great man utters the evil desire of his soul; thus they weave it together. The best of them is like a brier, the most upright of them a thorn hedge. The day of your watchmen, of your punishment, has come; now their confusion is at hand. Put no trust in a neighbor; have no confidence in a friend; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms; for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house. But as for me, I will look to the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation; my God will hear me. Rejoice not over me, O my enemy; when I fall, I shall rise; when I sit in darkness, the LORD will be a light to me. I will bear the indignation of the LORD because I have sinned against him, until he pleads my cause and executes judgment for me. He will bring me out to the light; I shall look upon his vindication. Then my enemy will see, and shame will cover her who said to me, “Where is the LORD your God?” My eyes will look upon her; now she will be trampled down like the mire of the streets.
- This is the faithful servant of God standing firm in the midst of a wicked generation, praying and patiently awaiting vindication. Don’t miss the twist here - in Micah it’s the enemies of Israel who will put to shame, and the faithful Israel vindicated. In this discourse, Jesus has placed his disciples in the role of faithful Israel, and Jerusalem and the temple system in the position of Israel’s enemies - How does v12 affect the way that we understand the end of v13 - he that endures to the end will be saved?
- v12 provides important backdrop to v13 - “Enduring to the end” may include remaining faithful even to the point of death, and the deliverance is greater than an end to the suffering. c.f. Rev. 2:10 - “Be faithful unto death and I will give you the crown of life.”

To sum up v5-13: Watch out that you’re not deceived (This is not the end):

by False Christs
by Wars
by earthquakes and famines Watch yourselves as persecution comes (Endure to the end):
You will bear witness
You will be betrayed
You will be hated

Intertextual Links

Jer. 29:8 - Yes, this is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: “Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you. Do not listen to the dreams you encourage them to have.
Luke 21:8 - And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.
2 Chron. 15:6 - One nation was being crushed by another and one city by another, because God was troubling them with every kind of distress.
Isa 19:2 - “I will stir up Egyptian against Egyptian— brother will fight against brother, neighbor against neighbor, city against city, kingdom against kingdom.
Micah 7:4-6 - The best of them is like a brier, the most upright worse than a thorn hedge. The day God visits you has come, the day your watchmen sound the alarm. Now is the time of your confusion. Do not trust a neighbor; put no confidence in a friend. Even with the woman who lies in your embrace guard the words of your lips. For a son dishonors his father, a daughter rises up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies are the members of his own household.

Skip

Some have understood the “birth pains” here to refer to something known as the Messianic woes, a time of travail that would usher in the Messianic age. Some interpreters see here a late fulfilment of the Messianic woes, subsequent to Christ and hinted at in passages like Isa. 66:7,8

But When

14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out, 16 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. 17 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! 18 Pray that it may not happen in winter. 19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. 20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. 21 And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.

Notes

Up until now, we’ve talked about the not-signs, and warned of coming persecution, now he points to an actual sign that requires immediate action - “but when you see…” - What are the disciples to look out for?
- For abomination of desolation, see book of Daniel (9:26-27, 11). Presumably, this speaks of the sacrilege that occurred in 167 B.C. that spurred the Maccabean revolt. Presumably, Jesus is pointing to that as an indicator of the kind of thing to look out for. The pagans are coming to defile Jerusalem, and you need to leave before that happens. Luke, who is writing to a primarily Gentile audience, interprets the significance of the sign for us - “when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies.”
  - “In 168 b.c. Antiochus Epiphanes slaughtered 40,000 Jews and plundered the temple. He sacrificed a pig on the altar of burnt offering, sprinkled broth from the unclean flesh all over the holy grounds as an act of deliberate defilement. He then erected an image of Zeus above the altar. It was a sacrilege of indescribable proportions indelibly imprinted on the minds of the Jews in Jesus’ day.”
While previously he exhorted his disciples to endure persecution, here the command is clear, “Flee!” A disaster is coming and the moment you recognize it, get out without hesitation so as to not be consumed by it. Why the exhortation to flee in this case whereas before it was to stand and endure suffering?
- This is not simply fleeing persecution, but an exhortation to take no part in this rebellion. The kingdom of God is not to be brought in by the sword. Jerusalem has herself become become Babylon, and the faithful were called to get our before destruction came.
- See the inexplicable retreat of the Roman commander Cestius in the early days of the siege which provided Jewish Christians an opportunity to flee the city (if they hadn’t already).
in v.19, Jesus says - “For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be” - How should we understand this?
- Many people read v.19 and assume that this means we’re talking about a still future event because of how bad it sounds and worse things have happened since (although questionable). A couple important things to keep in mind:
  - We don’t appreciate how brutally terrible the war of AD67-70 really was. An immense amount of human suffering that culminated in 1.1 million people being killed during the seige of Jerusalem and the remaining 97,000 being sold into slavery. The historical descriptions left behind of that time are horrendous in the intensity and scope of disaster.
  - The language used is common in the OT for an extraordinary event. For example:
    - Exodus 11:6 - There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt - worse than there has ever been or ever will be again
    - Exod. 10:14; A plague of locusts such as never before had been nor ever will be again (compare with the locust plague in Joel 1:1-4)
    - Ezek. 5:9 - speaking of the coming Exile, God says “I will do with you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again.”
    - 2 Kings 18:5 - of Hezekiah, There was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him . (c.f. 2 Kings 23:25 - of Josiah - before him there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart… nor did any like him arise after him)
Is v20 truly universal in scope (no human flesh would remain), or specific to the Jewish race (hence “for the sake of the elect”)?
- Likely the best understanding is that the without cutting short the days, all the Jews would have perished in the brutal war but the days were cut short for the sake of the elect Christians who has fled.
- On the historical testimony to an early cutting short of the days -
  - the city of Jerusalem was equipped with tower fortifications that were considered all but impenetrable. It was only due to in-fighting among zealot groups that resulted in the towers being abandoned and the Romans able to successfully enter the city. Josephus says: “They did wholly deprive themselves of the security they had in their own power, and came down from those very towers of their own accord, wherein they could never have been taken by force… They left those towers of themselves; or rather they were ejected out of them by God himself…The Romans when they had gotten on the last wall without any bloodshed, could hardly believe what they found to be true.” The Roman general Titus himself said: “We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God that ejected the Jews out of their fortifications; for what could the hands of men, or any machines, do towards overthrowing these towers!” As a result, the actual siege lasted only 5 months.
At this point, in the midst of great upheaval, the danger of deception is high and many claiming a false path of deliverance. As Matthew points out, Christ’s coming in glory will not happen in secret or need anyone to tell you to go here or there, but will be seen by all. There is not going to be a new Maccabean deliverance with Christ leading the charge. Don’t fall for it.
- (time permitting) It’s worth recounting this extended passage from the historian Josephus, which recounts one of these moments of false prophet late in the seige of Jerusalem, as well as some fascinating accounts of signs and portents that also sequeu nicely with the discussion in our next section: “A false prophet was the occasion of these people’s destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get up upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. (286) Now, there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose upon the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God: and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes. (287) Now, a man that is in adversity does easily comply with such promises; for when such a seducer makes him believe that he shall be delivered from those miseries which oppress him, then it is that the patient is full of hopes of such deliverance. (288) Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend, nor give credit, to the signs that were so evident and did so plainly foretell their future desolation; but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see, or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. (289) Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. (290) Thus also, before the Jews’ rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan], and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which light lasted for half an hour. (291) This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. (292) At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. (293) Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. (294) Now, those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it: who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty, was able to shut the gate again. (295) This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. (296) So these publicly declared, that this signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the twenty-first day of the month Artemisius [Jyar], (297) a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, (298) and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sunsetting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen (299) running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, (300) and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.” But, what is still more terrible there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for everyone to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (301) began on a sudden cry aloud, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!” This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. (302) However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say anything for himself, or anything peculiar to those that chastised him, but still he went on with the same words which he cried before. (303) Hereupon our rulers supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator; (304) where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet did he not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” (305) And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him who he was, and whence he came, and why he uttered such words; he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. (306) Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, “Woe, woe, to Jerusalem!” (307) Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. (308) This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; (309) for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, “Woe, woe, to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!” And just as he added at the last,—“Woe, woe, to myself also!” there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages, he gave up the ghost.”
While up to this point, the message is clearly focused on the destruction of the temple, what comes next has caused considerably more debate.

Intertextual Links

Abomination of desolation:
- Dan. 9:27 - And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”
- Dan 11:31 - Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.
Judgment against Israel:
- Mt. 22:2-10 - “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.” ’ But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
- Mt. 23:29-36 - “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Coming on the Clouds

24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

Notes

Why do most people assume that when we get to v.24 that we’ve transitioned from talking about the destruction of Jerusalem to talking about the second coming of Christ?
- A lot of people assume that v.24 jumps straight to the end and the second coming of Christ. This is because when read in a woodenly literal fashion, such a cosmic upheaval could mean nothing less than the end of the world. However, Jesus is again using language that is drawn directly from the OT prophets when speaking of judgment against the existing order - our our idiom, the world turned upside down -
  - Isaiah 13:10 (of Babylon) - For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.
  - Isaiah 34:4 (of Edom) - All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree.
  - Jer. 4:23-25 (of Israel) - I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro.
  - Ezekiel 32:7 (of Egypt) - When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light.
  - Amos 8:9 (Northern Kingdom) - “And on that day,” declares the Lord GOD, “I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.
  - Joel 2:10 (Judah) - The earth quakes before them; the heavens tremble. The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining. The other difficulty is that Jesus explicitly and temporally ties this event to the destruction of Jerusalem, with the phrase “in those days, after that tribulation.” Matthew goes one step further and makes it “immediately after the tribulation of those days...” Based on those two factors, it seems right to conclude that what is being described in vv.24-25 is nothing less than the destruction of the Temple itself and the final overturning of the old covenant order.
Now, it’s possible that, depending on how you come to read v.26-27, that the tumult in v.24-25 extends to cover the rising and falling of kingdoms and the ensuing tumults throughout the church age. Regardless, given Jesus’ language it cannot NOT be referring to the upheaval coming upon Jerusalem and the Temple.
v.26 poses a greater difficulty. On the one hand, some people understand the language as describing visible return of Christ to earth. On the other hand, we again have an OT reference that others argue could possible point us in a different direction - Dan. 7:13-14 -
Let’s talk through 3 ways this is read:
- Some have described this as a coming of Christ in judgment. See, for example, Isa 19 describing the Lord riding on a swift cloud in judgment against Egypt. Also, Jesus to the churches in Rev. 2-3:
  - Rev. 2:5 where Jesus says to the church at Ephesus “I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent”
  - Rev. 2:16 where he says to Pergamum repent or “I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth”
  - Rev. 3:3 where he says to Laodicea, “If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you”
- Others have described this as a demonstration of Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of the Father. The fulfilment of his words in the destruction of Jerusalem shows that he is indeed the Son of Man in glory. Often Dan. 7:13-14 is cited in favor of this, where it shows the coming of the Son of Man as a coming to the throne of the Father to receive a kingdom. See also Jesus’ response to the high priest in Mark 14:62, which draws on the same passage “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
  - Wright, JVG - “(In Mark 14) Jesus is not . . . suggesting that Caiaphas will witness the end of the space-time order. Nor will he look out of the window one day and observe a human figure flying downwards on a cloud. It is absurd to imagine either Jesus, or Mark, or anyone in between, supposing the words to mean that. Caiaphas will witness the strange events that follow Jesus’ crucifixion: the rise of a group of disciples claiming that he has been raised from the dead, and the events which accelerate towards the final clash with Rome, in which . . . Jesus will be vindicated as a true prophet. In and through it all, Caiaphas will witness events which show that Jesus was not, after all, mistaken in his claim, hitherto implicit, now at last explicit: he is the Messiah, the anointed one, the true representative of the people of Israel, the one in and through whom the covenant God is acting to set up his kingdom”
  - Likewise for this passage, the fulfillment of the judgment against Jerusalem would vindicate Jesus as a true Messiah.
- Still others have described this as a case of prophetic time horizon, where two events are described together even though there is a long time between them. The generic “and then” at the start of v.26 does provide a grammatical opening for that interpretation, unlike the temporally locked verbiage of v.24-25. Matthew’s version also includes and allusion Zech 12:12 - “all the tribes of the land will mourn” which could further be understood as a reference to 70AD.
- France - “All the tribes of the earth is better translated ‘all the tribes (families) of the land’, for in Zechariah 12:10-14 the mourning is explicitly restricted to the families of Israel. What is in view here, then, is not so much a world-wide lamentation, but the response of Israel when they see the vindication of ‘him whom they pierced”
The same interpretive decision applies in v.27.
- Some understand this as a reference to messengers gathering the elect from the nations (e.g. the great commission / spiritual return from exile).
  - For the language of the gather from the four winds and return from exile, see Deut. 30:4, Zech. 2:6
    - Deut 30 - return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have mercy on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you. 4 If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there he will take you. 5 And the LORD your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it.
    - Note: “The LXX of v. 4 renders the Hebrew biqtse hashamayim, lit. ‘among the ends of the heavens’, as apʾ akrou tou ouranou heos akrou tou ouranou, ‘from the end of heaven to the end of heaven’, which is echoed more or less exactly in Mt. 24:31b, apʾ akron ouranon heos ton akron auton, and modified only slightly in Mk. 13:27b, apʾ akrou ges heos akrou ouranou (‘from the end of earth to the end of heaven’). This, in other words, suggests strongly that the Mk. passage refers, not to a ‘supernatural’ or ‘heavenly’ event, but to this-worldly activity.”
  - See the parable of the wedding feast in Mt. 22:2-10, and note the similarities - the kings servants are persecuted, the king comes and destroys their city, and then he sends out servants to gather guests from all around.
- Others see a literal gathering of the elect at the end of the age by angels (c.f. 2 Thess 2).
There is also the possibility that we see here a near and far fulfillment and both are true. AD70 was a coming of Jesus in judgment, and was a vindication of him as a prophet and the reigning Messiah. Likewise, we know from many other passages to expect the Lord’s visible and glorious return, and described in language that is similar sounding to this.

Intertextual Links

Dan 7:13-14 - “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

This Generation and That Day

28 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 32 “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come. 34 It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to stay awake. 35 Therefore stay awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning— 36 lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. 37 And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake.”

Notes

Verse 30 represents possibly the strongest exegetical challenge to any interpretation of v.1-27 that is awaiting future fulfillment. Jesus stakes his reputation as a prophet on a fulfillment in “this generation.” There have been a lot of creative interpretations that try to understand “generation” in some way other than “the generation of people we are living in” but they all strain credulity and fall flat.
On the relationship between v30 & v32, two ways to read that:
- v30 means we know that the events will take place within a generation, but v32 means no one knows exactly when it will be.
- Alternatively, v30 speaks of the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem (“all these things”), whereas v32 speaks of the second coming itself (“that day”). Of the first, Jesus knows the timeline and the disciples can read the signs to know that it is near, but of the second no one knows and hence the call to stay awake and be ready.
Some take “all these things” to refer to everything in v3-27, and “that day” to refer to the previously unreferenced (except maybe in Matthew’s account) second coming and last judgment.
- c.f. the many references to the coming of the Lord and the final judgment as “that day” almost as a technical term. Matt. 7:22; Luke 10:12; 17:31; 21:34; 2Thess 1:10; 2Time 1:12, 18; 4:8
What is the “it is near” in v29? It seems, in the context of Mark’s gospel, that he is referring to either the kingdom of God or the destruction of Jerusalem.

How to we apply this passage?

Believe

Jesus Christ is a true prophet and his words and ministry are vindicated by their fulfillment - they are striking in their accurate fulfillment, but it is spoken in OT prophet language and not in any kind of detailed description that might lead one to believe that it was written after the fact.
Jesus is the glorified Son of Man, who reigns right now at the right hand of God the Father - all authority on heaven and earth has been given to him. The rise and fall of nations is very much under his sovereign control. That applies every bit today as it did during AD70.
Watch
We should always be watchful, as there remains nothing more to look for before the return of our Lord. He will return in a fashion that will be unmistakable to all, and will come without warning. All of the prerequisite things preceding his coming have come to pass. But,
We should not presume to have any idea as to the timing of the Lord’s return. It may be tonight, or it may be another 1000 years. If Mark 13:32 tells us anything, it should tell us to be humble about this.
We should not be led astray by disasters natural or human, to suppose that the world is coming to an end, or lose heart in the face of persecution and opposition. These are but the birth pains of the Messianic age. We must not be, as Luke describes, “People who faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world.”

Hypothetical Debate on the Olivet Discourse

Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Below was a artificial debate generated by Bing Chat regarding the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. It was instructed to create the debate between Don Carson and Kenneth Gentry. No information was provided as to what their positions actually were. It’s fascinating how it captures the essence of several critical issues, although it’s also instructive that the dialogue very convincingly misrepresents D.A. Carson’s position on several elements.

This is a hypothetical debate between Kenneth Gentry and Don Carson on the proper interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. The debate is moderated by me, Bing.

Moderator: Welcome to this debate on the Olivet Discourse, the longest recorded sermon of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. This discourse contains some of the most difficult and controversial passages in the New Testament, especially regarding the timing and nature of Jesus’ return and the end of the age. We have two distinguished scholars who will present their views and interact with each other on this topic. On my right is Dr. Kenneth Gentry, a retired Presbyterian minister, author of numerous books on theology and biblical studies, and a conference speaker who has spoken throughout America, in the Caribbean, and Australia. He is a leading proponent of preterism, the view that most of the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in the first century, especially in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in AD 70. On my left is Dr. Don Carson, a research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, president of The Gospel Coalition, and author or editor of more than 50 books on various topics related to biblical studies and Christian living. He is a well-known advocate of evangelicalism, the view that the Olivet Discourse has both historical and eschatological aspects, but that the main focus is on the future return of Christ and the consummation of his kingdom. Each speaker will have 10 minutes for an opening statement, followed by a series of back and forth responses on the key interpretive questions in the passage, and then each will have 5 minutes for a concluding statement. Dr. Gentry, you may begin.

Gentry: Thank you, moderator, and thank you, Dr. Carson, for this opportunity to dialogue with you on this important subject. I believe that the Olivet Discourse is one of the most misunderstood passages in the Bible, and that many Christians have been misled by false expectations and speculations based on a faulty interpretation of it. My position is that the Olivet Discourse is primarily about the judgment of God upon Israel for rejecting their Messiah, and that this judgment was executed in AD 70 when the Roman armies besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple. This event was a sign of Christ’s authority and vindication as the Son of Man who came in his kingdom within his own generation, as he predicted in Matthew 16:28. The language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation in the discourse is not to be taken literally, but as apocalyptic imagery that conveys the significance and magnitude of this historical event. The coming of Christ in the clouds with power and glory is not his physical return at the end of history, but his spiritual presence and intervention in history to judge his enemies and deliver his people. The gathering of his elect from the four winds is not a rapture of believers from earth to heaven, but a gathering of Jews and Gentiles into his church through the gospel. The discourse does not address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but only the end of the old covenant era and the beginning of the new covenant era.

Carson: Thank you, moderator, and thank you, Dr. Gentry, for your presentation. I respect your scholarship and your commitment to Scripture, but I disagree with your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. I believe that you have imposed a preterist framework on the text that does not do justice to its historical context or its theological message. My position is that the Olivet Discourse is a complex blend of historical and eschatological elements that cannot be neatly separated or reduced to one single event or time frame. The discourse was prompted by two questions from Jesus’ disciples: when will these things happen (referring to the destruction of the temple), and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age (referring to his return and consummation)? Jesus answered both questions in an interrelated way that shows both continuity and discontinuity between them. He warned his disciples about false messiahs, wars, famines, earthquakes, persecutions, apostasy, false prophets, lawlessness, tribulation, and desolation that would characterize both their own generation leading up to AD 70 and also future generations leading up to his return. He also gave them signs of hope: the gospel would be preached to all nations, they would be empowered by the Holy Spirit to endure suffering and bear witness to him, they would be saved by his grace if they remained faithful to him, they would see him coming in his glory with his angels to gather his elect from every corner of creation, they would inherit his eternal kingdom where righteousness dwells. The language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation in the discourse is not merely symbolic or figurative, but reflects both historical realities (such as natural disasters or political upheavals) and eschatological realities (such as the final judgment or the new creation). The coming of Christ in the clouds with power and glory is not only his spiritual presence or intervention in history, but also his physical return at the end of history to judge the living and the dead and to make all things new. The gathering of his elect from the four winds is not only a gathering of Jews and Gentiles into his church through the gospel, but also a rapture of believers from earth to heaven to meet him in the air and to be with him forever. The discourse does address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but not in detail or in chronological order, but rather in a thematic or climactic way that emphasizes the certainty and urgency of his coming and the need for watchfulness and readiness.

Moderator: Thank you, Dr. Carson. Now we will move on to the back and forth responses on the key interpretive questions in the passage. The first question is: What is the meaning and referent of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32? Dr. Gentry, you may go first.

Gentry: The meaning and referent of “this generation” is clear and straightforward. It means the generation that was alive when Jesus spoke these words, that is, the first-century generation that witnessed his ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and outpouring of the Spirit. This is how Jesus consistently used this expression throughout his ministry, as a way of identifying and indicting his contemporaries for their unbelief and rebellion against God (see Matt. 11:16; 12:39-45; 23:36; Mark 8:12; Luke 7:31; 11:29-32; 17:25). There is no reason to depart from this normal and natural meaning in the Olivet Discourse, especially when Jesus emphasized that “all these things” (referring to everything he had predicted up to that point) would take place within “this generation”. To interpret “this generation” as referring to some future generation (such as the generation that sees the signs of his coming, or the generation that lives at the end of history) is to twist the plain sense of the words and to make Jesus say something he did not intend or imply. It also creates a problem of credibility and authority for Jesus, since he would be making a false or misleading prediction that did not come to pass as he said it would. This would undermine his claim to be the Son of God and the faithful and true witness.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an inaccurate representation of Carson’s view on “this generation” Carson: The meaning and referent of “this generation” is not as clear and straightforward as Dr. Gentry suggests. It is true that Jesus often used this expression to refer to his contemporaries who rejected him and his message, but it is not true that this is the only way he used it or could use it. In fact, there are other ways that this expression can be understood in biblical and Jewish literature, such as a reference to a type or class of people who share certain characteristics or qualities (such as wickedness or faithlessness), or a reference to an indefinite period of time or an age (such as the present evil age or the age to come). For example, in Psalm 24:6, David speaks of “this generation” that seeks God’s face, which cannot be limited to his own historical generation, but rather refers to a category of godly people who worship God in spirit and truth. Similarly, in Hebrews 3:10, the author quotes God’s words about “that generation” that provoked him in the wilderness, which cannot be restricted to the specific generation that left Egypt under Moses, but rather refers to a type of rebellious people who disobey God’s voice and harden their hearts. Therefore, it is possible that Jesus used “this generation” in the Olivet Discourse in a similar way, either as a reference to a kind of people who oppose him and his gospel throughout history until he returns, or as a reference to an era or age that spans from his first coming to his second coming. This would not violate the normal or natural meaning of the words, but rather reflect their semantic range and contextual flexibility. It would also not create a problem of credibility or authority for Jesus, since he would not be making a false or misleading prediction that did not come to pass as he said it would, but rather a true and reliable prediction that encompasses both near and far fulfillments.

Moderator: Thank you both for your responses. The next question is: What is the meaning and referent of “the abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:20? Dr. Carson, you may go first.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an inaccurate representation of Carson’s view on “the abomination of desolation” Carson: The meaning and referent of “the abomination of desolation” is based on Daniel’s prophecy in Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11. In Daniel’s context, this expression refers to a sacrilegious act or object that defiles the temple and causes its desolation. The most likely historical fulfillment of this prophecy in Daniel’s time was the invasion of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 BC, who erected an altar to Zeus in the temple and sacrificed a pig on it, thus provoking the Maccabean revolt. However, Jesus used this expression in the Olivet Discourse not only to refer to a past event, but also to a future event that would parallel and surpass it. He warned his disciples that when they saw “the abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place (Matthew) or where it ought not to be (Mark), they should flee from Judea to the mountains, for then there would be great tribulation such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. He also quoted Daniel’s words that “the one who reads, let him understand” (Matthew and Mark), indicating that his disciples needed spiritual discernment to recognize this sign. Luke’s version of the discourse does not use the expression “the abomination of desolation”, but instead says “when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near”. This suggests that Luke interpreted “the abomination of desolation” as referring to the Roman armies that besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70, fulfilling Jesus’ prediction. However, this does not mean that this was the only or final fulfillment of Jesus’ words, since he also spoke of his coming and the end of the age in connection with this sign. Therefore, it is possible that “the abomination of desolation” also refers to a future event that will precede his return, such as a false messiah or an antichrist figure who will set himself up in God’s temple and demand worship, as Paul predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.

Gentry: The meaning and referent of “the abomination of desolation” is not based on a future event that will precede Christ’s return, but on a past event that confirmed Christ’s authority. Jesus used this expression in the Olivet Discourse to refer exclusively to the Roman armies that besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70, fulfilling both Daniel’s prophecy and his own prediction. He warned his disciples that when they saw this sign, they should flee from Judea to the mountains, for then there would be great tribulation such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. He also quoted Daniel’s words that “the one who reads, let him understand” (Matthew and Mark), indicating that his disciples needed historical insight to recognize this sign. Luke’s version of the discourse confirms this interpretation by saying “when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near”. This shows that Luke understood “the abomination of desolation” as referring to the Roman armies that brought about Jerusalem’s destruction. This was not only a historical event, but also a theological event, since it marked the end of the old covenant era and the vindication of Christ as the Son of Man who came in his kingdom within his own generation. There is no need to look for another or future fulfillment of Jesus’ words, since he did not speak of his coming and the end of the age in connection with this sign, but rather in contrast to it. He distinguished between “these things” (referring to everything he had predicted up to verse 34) and “that day” (referring to his return at an unknown time after verse 36). Therefore, it is not possible that “the abomination of desolation” also refers to a future event that will precede his return, such as a false messiah or an antichrist figure who will set himself up in God’s temple and demand worship, as Paul predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. This is a misreading of Paul’s words and a confusion of different contexts and time frames.

Moderator: Thank you both for your responses. The next question is: What is the meaning and referent of “the coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:27-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28? Dr. Gentry, you may go first.

Gentry: The meaning and referent of “the coming of the Son of Man” is not his physical return at the end of history, but his spiritual presence and intervention in history to judge his enemies and deliver his people. Jesus used this expression in the Olivet Discourse to describe his coming in his kingdom within his own generation, as he predicted in Matthew 16:28. He used the language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation to convey the significance and magnitude of this historical event, not to depict literal or physical phenomena. He drew on the imagery of the Old Testament prophets, who often used such language to describe God’s judgment on nations and empires, such as Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, or Edom (see Isaiah 13:9-10; 19:1; 34:4; Ezekiel 32:7-8; Joel 2:10; 3:15). He also used the imagery of Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man is seen coming with the clouds of heaven to receive authority, glory, and dominion from the Ancient of Days. This is not a reference to his ascension or his second coming, but to his enthronement and vindication as the Messiah and King of Israel. He also used the imagery of Zechariah 12:10-14; 14:1-5, where the Lord is seen coming with his holy ones to defend Jerusalem and to pour out a spirit of grace and supplication on the house of David. This is not a reference to his first coming or his second coming, but to his judgment and salvation of Israel. The coming of the Son of Man in the Olivet Discourse is a combination of these Old Testament images, applied to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in AD 70. This was a sign of Christ’s authority and vindication as the Son of Man who came in his kingdom within his own generation. The gathering of his elect from the four winds is not a rapture of believers from earth to heaven, but a gathering of Jews and Gentiles into his church through the gospel. The discourse does not address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but only the end of the old covenant era and the beginning of the new covenant era.

Carson: The meaning and referent of “the coming of the Son of Man” is his physical return at the end of history to judge the living and the dead and to make all things new. Jesus used this expression in the Olivet Discourse to describe his coming in his glory with his angels to gather his elect from every corner of creation, as he predicted in Matthew 25:31-46. He used the language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation to convey not only historical realities (such as natural disasters or political upheavals), but also eschatological realities (such as the final judgment or the new creation). He drew on the imagery of the Old Testament prophets, who often used such language to describe not only God’s judgment on nations and empires, but also God’s restoration of his people and his creation, such as Israel, Zion, or Eden (see Isaiah 24:23; 27:13; 65:17-25; Ezekiel 37:12-14; Amos 9:11-15). He also used the imagery of Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man is seen coming with the clouds of heaven to receive authority, glory, and dominion from the Ancient of Days. This is not only a reference to his enthronement and vindication as the Messiah and King of Israel, but also to his universal and eternal reign over all nations and peoples. He also used the imagery of Zechariah 12:10-14; 14:1-5, where the Lord is seen coming with his holy ones to defend Jerusalem and to pour out a spirit of grace and supplication on the house of David. This is not only a reference to his judgment and salvation of Israel, but also to his universal and final salvation of all who look on him whom they have pierced and mourn for him. The coming of the Son of Man in the Olivet Discourse is a combination of these Old Testament images, applied to the future return of Christ and the consummation of his kingdom. This will be a sign of Christ’s authority and glory as the Son of Man who will come in his kingdom at the end of history. The gathering of his elect from the four winds is a rapture of believers from earth to heaven to meet him in the air and to be with him forever. The discourse does address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but not in detail or in chronological order, but rather in a thematic or climactic way that emphasizes the certainty and urgency of his coming and the need for watchfulness and readiness.

Moderator: Thank you both for your responses. The next question is: What is the meaning and referent of “the parousia” in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; James 5:7-8; 2 Peter 3:3-13; 1 John 2:28? Dr. Carson, you may go first.

Carson: The meaning and referent of “the parousia” is the personal and visible return of Christ at the end of history to complete his redemptive work and to consummate his kingdom. The word “parousia” is a Greek term that means “presence” or “arrival” or “coming”. It is used in the New Testament to refer to the second coming of Christ in contrast to his first coming in the flesh. It is also used to refer to the coming of other persons, such as Paul, Stephanas, or the lawless one, but in these cases it is clear from the context that it is not the same as the coming of Christ. The parousia of Christ is a major theme in the New Testament, especially in the epistles, where it is often connected with the hope and expectation of believers, the resurrection and transformation of their bodies, the judgment and reward of their works, the destruction and renewal of the creation, and the glory and worship of God. The parousia of Christ is also a major theme in the Olivet Discourse, where it is used four times by Matthew (24:3, 27, 37, 39) to describe the sign of Christ’s coming and the end of the age. In this context, it is clear that Jesus was not referring to his coming in AD 70 to judge Jerusalem and its temple, but to his coming at an unknown time after that event to judge the world and to gather his elect. He used the analogy of lightning that flashes from east to west to illustrate the visibility and universality of his coming. He used the analogy of Noah and the flood to illustrate the suddenness and unexpectedness of his coming. He used the analogy of one taken and one left to illustrate the separation and distinction between those who are ready for his coming and those who are not. He also used other expressions that are synonymous or parallel with “the parousia”, such as “the day of the Lord”, “the day of judgment”, “the day of God”, or “the day when he is revealed”. These expressions all point to the same reality: the final and decisive intervention of God in history through his Son Jesus Christ.

Gentry: The meaning and referent of “the parousia” is not the personal and visible return of Christ at the end of history, but the spiritual and historical presence and intervention of Christ in the first century to judge Israel and to establish his kingdom. The word “parousia” is a Greek term that means “presence” or “arrival” or “coming”. It is used in the New Testament to refer to the coming of Christ in relation to his own generation, as he predicted in Matthew 16:28. It is also used to refer to the coming of other persons, such as Paul, Stephanas, or the lawless one, but in these cases it is clear from the context that it is not the same as the coming of Christ. The parousia of Christ is a minor theme in the New Testament, especially in the epistles, where it is often connected with the comfort and encouragement of believers, the perseverance and faithfulness of their lives, the deliverance and protection of their souls, the confirmation and fulfillment of their hope, and the praise and thanksgiving of God. The parousia of Christ is also a minor theme in the Olivet Discourse, where it is used four times by Matthew (24:3, 27, 37, 39) to describe the sign of Christ’s coming and the end of the age. In this context, it is clear that Jesus was referring to his coming in AD 70 to judge Jerusalem and its temple, not to his coming at an unknown time after that event to judge the world and to gather his elect. He used the analogy of lightning that flashes from east to west to illustrate the speed and certainty of his coming. He used the analogy of Noah and the flood to illustrate the wickedness and judgment of his generation. He used the analogy of one taken and one left to illustrate the distinction and separation between those who are faithful to him and those who are not. He also used other expressions that are synonymous or parallel with “the parousia”, such as “the day of vengeance”, “the day of wrath”, “the day of visitation”, or “the day when he is revealed”. These expressions all point to the same reality: the historical and decisive intervention of God in history through his Son Jesus Christ.

Moderator: Thank you both for your responses. The next question is: How do you harmonize the different accounts of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Dr. Gentry, you may go first.

Gentry: I harmonize the different accounts of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew, Mark, and Luke by recognizing that they are complementary and consistent, not contradictory or conflicting. Each Gospel writer had a different purpose and audience in mind when he recorded Jesus’ words, and therefore he selected and arranged the material according to his own perspective and emphasis. Matthew wrote for a predominantly Jewish audience, and therefore he stressed the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies and the judgment of Israel in AD 70. Mark wrote for a predominantly Gentile audience, and therefore he focused on the suffering and perseverance of the church in the face of persecution and tribulation. Luke wrote for a predominantly Greek audience, and therefore he highlighted the universal scope and historical accuracy of Jesus’ predictions. However, none of these differences imply any contradiction or error in their accounts. They all agree on the main points and themes of the discourse, such as the destruction of the temple, the signs of the end of the age, the coming of the Son of Man, the gathering of the elect, and the need for watchfulness and readiness. They also use similar language and imagery to convey Jesus’ message, such as “the abomination of desolation”, “the great tribulation”, “the sun will be darkened”, “the Son of Man coming on the clouds”, “the angels will gather his elect”, and “this generation will not pass away”. Therefore, I harmonize the different accounts of the Olivet Discourse by viewing them as different perspectives on the same event: the coming of Christ in his kingdom within his own generation.

Carson: I harmonize the different accounts of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew, Mark, and Luke by recognizing that they are not complementary and consistent, but rather supplementary and progressive. Each Gospel writer had a different purpose and audience in mind when he recorded Jesus’ words, and therefore he selected and arranged the material according to his own perspective and emphasis. However, this does not mean that they were independent or isolated from each other, but rather that they were aware and influenced by each other. Matthew wrote after Mark, and therefore he expanded and clarified Mark’s account by adding more details and explanations. Luke wrote after Matthew, and therefore he corrected and updated Matthew’s account by adding more historical and theological insights. However, none of these differences imply any contradiction or error in their accounts. They all agree on the main points and themes of the discourse, such as the destruction of the temple, the signs of the end of the age, the coming of the Son of Man, the gathering of the elect, and the need for watchfulness and readiness. They also use similar language and imagery to convey Jesus’ message, such as “the abomination of desolation”, “the great tribulation”, “the sun will be darkened”, “the Son of Man coming on the clouds”, “the angels will gather his elect”, and “this generation will not pass away”. Therefore, I harmonize the different accounts of the Olivet Discourse by viewing them as different stages of the same event: the coming of Christ in his glory at the end of history.

Moderator: Thank you both for your responses. This concludes the debate on the Olivet Discourse. The participants have opportunity for closing remarks. Each speaker will have 5 minutes to summarize their main points and arguments, and to respond to any questions or objections that they have not addressed yet. They will also have the opportunity to express their appreciation and respect for each other, and to invite the audience to further study and reflection on the topic. The order of the closing remarks will be the same as the opening statements: Dr. Gentry will go first, followed by Dr. Carson.

Gentry: I will now present my closing remarks on the Olivet Discourse. I hope that I have shown you that the preterist interpretation of this passage is the most faithful and consistent with the biblical text and the historical context. I have argued that:

The Olivet Discourse is primarily about the judgment of God upon Israel for rejecting their Messiah, and that this judgment was executed in AD 70 when the Roman armies besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.
The language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation in the discourse is not to be taken literally, but as apocalyptic imagery that conveys the significance and magnitude of this historical event.
The coming of Christ in the clouds with power and glory is not his physical return at the end of history, but his spiritual presence and intervention in history to judge his enemies and deliver his people.
The gathering of his elect from the four winds is not a rapture of believers from earth to heaven, but a gathering of Jews and Gentiles into his church through the gospel.
The discourse does not address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but only the end of the old covenant era and the beginning of the new covenant era. I have also responded to some of the objections and questions raised by Dr. Carson and the audience, such as:
The meaning and referent of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32. I have shown that it means the generation that was alive when Jesus spoke these words, that is, the first-century generation that witnessed his ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and outpouring of the Spirit. This is how Jesus consistently used this expression throughout his ministry, as a way of identifying and indicting his contemporaries for their unbelief and rebellion against God. There is no reason to depart from this normal and natural meaning in the Olivet Discourse, especially when Jesus emphasized that “all these things” (referring to everything he had predicted up to that point) would take place within “this generation”.
The meaning and referent of “the abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:20. I have shown that it refers to the Roman armies that besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70, fulfilling both Daniel’s prophecy and Jesus’ prediction. This was not only a historical event, but also a theological event, since it marked the end of the old covenant era and the vindication of Christ as the Son of Man who came in his kingdom within his own generation. There is no need to look for another or future fulfillment of Jesus’ words, since he did not speak of his coming and the end of the age in connection with this sign, but rather in contrast to it.
The meaning and referent of “the coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:27-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28. I have shown that it is not his physical return at the end of history, but his spiritual presence and intervention in history to judge his enemies and deliver his people. He used the language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation to convey the significance and magnitude of this historical event, not to depict literal or physical phenomena. He drew on the imagery of the Old Testament prophets, who often used such language to describe God’s judgment on nations and empires, such as Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, or Edom. He also used the imagery of Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man is seen coming with the clouds of heaven to receive authority, glory, and dominion from the Ancient of Days. This is not a reference to his ascension or his second coming, but to his enthronement and vindication as the Messiah and King of Israel. He also used the imagery of Zechariah 12:10-14; 14:1-5, where the Lord is seen coming with his holy ones to defend Jerusalem and to pour out a spirit of grace and supplication on the house of David. This is not a reference to his first coming or his second coming, but to his judgment and salvation of Israel. The coming of the Son of Man in the Olivet Discourse is a combination of these Old Testament images, applied to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in AD 70. This was a sign of Christ’s authority and vindication as the Son of Man who came in his kingdom within his own generation. The gathering of his elect from the four winds is not a rapture of believers from earth to heaven, but a gathering of Jews and Gentiles into his church through the gospel. The discourse does not address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but only the end of the old covenant era and the beginning of the new covenant era. I have also shown that Dr. Carson’s interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is not faithful or consistent with the biblical text and the historical context. He has argued that:
The Olivet Discourse is a complex blend of historical and eschatological elements that cannot be neatly separated or reduced to one single event or time frame.
The language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation in the discourse reflects both historical realities (such as natural disasters or political upheavals) and eschatological realities (such as the final judgment or the new creation).
The coming of Christ in the clouds with power and glory is his physical return at the end of history to judge the living and the dead and to make all things new.
The gathering of his elect from the four winds is a rapture of believers from earth to heaven to meet him in the air and to be with him forever.
The discourse does address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but not in detail or in chronological order, but rather in a thematic or climactic way that emphasizes the certainty and urgency of his coming and the need for watchfulness and readiness. I have also raised some objections and questions against Dr. Carson’s interpretation, such as:
The meaning and referent of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32. I have shown that it does not mean a type or class of people who share certain characteristics or qualities (such as wickedness or faithlessness), or an indefinite period of time or an age (such as the present evil age or the age to come). This is a forced and unnatural meaning that does not fit the context or the usage of Jesus. It also makes Jesus’ prediction vague and indefinite, and undermines his authority and reliability as a prophet.
The meaning and referent of “the abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:20. I have shown that it does not refer to a future event that will precede his return, such as a false messiah or an antichrist figure who will set himself up in God’s temple and demand worship, as Paul predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. This is a misreading of Paul’s words and a confusion of different contexts and time frames. Paul was not referring to the same event as Jesus, but to a different event that would occur before the day of the Lord, which is not the same as the day of Christ or the parousia. Paul was also writing to a specific church that was facing a specific problem of deception and apostasy, not to the universal church that was facing a universal problem of persecution and tribulation.
The meaning and referent of “the coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:27-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28. I have shown that it is not his physical return at the end of history, but his spiritual presence and intervention in history to judge his enemies and deliver his people. He used the language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation to convey the significance and magnitude of this historical event, not to depict literal or physical phenomena. He drew on the imagery of the Old Testament prophets, who often used such language to describe God’s judgment on nations and empires, such as Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, or Edom. He also used the imagery of Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man is seen coming with the clouds of heaven to receive authority, glory, and dominion from the Ancient of Days. This is not a reference to his ascension or his second coming, but to his enthronement and vindication as the Messiah and King of Israel. He also used the imagery of Zechariah 12:10-14; 14:1-5, where the Lord is seen coming with his holy ones to defend Jerusalem and to pour out a spirit of grace and supplication on the house of David. This is not a reference to his first coming or his second coming, but to his judgment and salvation of Israel. The coming of the Son of Man in the Olivet Discourse is a combination of these Old Testament images, applied to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in AD 70. This was a sign of Christ’s authority and vindication as the Son of Man who came in his kingdom within his own generation. The gathering of his elect from the four winds is not a rapture of believers from earth to heaven, but a gathering of Jews and Gentiles into his church through the gospel. The discourse does not address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but only the end of the old covenant era and the beginning of the new covenant era. In conclusion, I would like to thank Dr. Carson for this debate and for his respect for me. I would also like to thank the moderator and the audience for their attention and their questions. I hope that this debate has challenged you to study the Scriptures more carefully and to seek the truth more earnestly. May God bless you all.

Carson: I will now present my closing remarks on the Olivet Discourse. I hope that I have shown you that the evangelical interpretation of this passage is the most faithful and consistent with the biblical text and the historical context. I have argued that:

The Olivet Discourse is a complex blend of historical and eschatological elements that cannot be neatly separated or reduced to one single event or time frame.
The language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation in the discourse reflects both historical realities (such as natural disasters or political upheavals) and eschatological realities (such as the final judgment or the new creation).
The coming of Christ in the clouds with power and glory is his physical return at the end of history to judge the living and the dead and to make all things new.
The gathering of his elect from the four winds is a rapture of believers from earth to heaven to meet him in the air and to be with him forever.
The discourse does address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but not in detail or in chronological order, but rather in a thematic or climactic way that emphasizes the certainty and urgency of his coming and the need for watchfulness and readiness. I have also responded to some of the objections and questions raised by Dr. Gentry and the audience, such as:
The meaning and referent of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32. I have shown that it does not mean the generation that was alive when Jesus spoke these words, that is, the first-century generation that witnessed his ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and outpouring of the Spirit. This is a forced and unnatural meaning that does not fit the context or the usage of Jesus. It also makes Jesus’ prediction vague and indefinite, and undermines his authority and reliability as a prophet. I have shown that it means a type or class of people who share certain characteristics or qualities (such as wickedness or faithlessness), or an indefinite period of time or an age (such as the present evil age or the age to come). This is a normal and natural meaning that fits the context and the usage of Jesus. It also makes Jesus’ prediction clear and definite, and confirms his authority and reliability as a prophet.
The meaning and referent of “the abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:20. I have shown that it does not refer to the Roman armies that besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70, fulfilling both Daniel’s prophecy and Jesus’ prediction. This is a partial and incomplete fulfillment that does not account for all the details and implications of Jesus’ words. It also limits Jesus’ message to a local and temporal event, rather than a universal and eternal event. I have shown that it refers to a future event that will precede his return, such as a false messiah or an antichrist figure who will set himself up in God’s temple and demand worship, as Paul predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. This is a full and complete fulfillment that accounts for all the details and implications of Jesus’ words. It also expands Jesus’ message to a global and eternal event. It also prepares Jesus’ followers for a future and final crisis that will test their faith and loyalty to him.
The meaning and referent of “the coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:27-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28. I have shown that it is not his spiritual presence and intervention in history to judge his enemies and deliver his people. This is a metaphorical and historical interpretation that does not do justice to the literal and eschatological language and imagery that Jesus used. It also reduces Jesus’ role to a passive and invisible spectator, rather than an active and visible participant. I have shown that it is his physical return at the end of history to judge the living and the dead and to make all things new. This is a literal and eschatological interpretation that does justice to the language and imagery that Jesus used. It also exalts Jesus’ role to a sovereign and glorious Lord, who will come with his angels to gather his elect from every corner of creation. In conclusion, I would like to thank Dr. Gentry for this debate and for his respect for me. I would also like to thank the moderator and the audience for their attention and their questions. I hope that this debate has challenged you to study the Scriptures more carefully and to seek the truth more earnestly. May God bless you all.

Mark 10 (2nd half)

Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:35:00 +0000

The Rich Young Man

Mark 10:17–31

“The point is that no one can enter the kingdom of God on their own merit. All must enter with childlike faith and dependence on the grace of God.”

Psalm 49:5–9, 15 “Why should I fear in times of trouble, when the iniquity of those who cheat me surrounds me, those who trust in their wealth and boast of the abundance of their riches? Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice, that he should live on forever and never see the pit…But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me.”

As we mentioned last spring, Mark 8:31-10:52 consists of 3 repeating cycles consisting of:

Jesus predicting his death
The disciples saying something dumb, revealing their blindness
Jesus teaching on the true meaning of discipleship

In the first cycle in Chapter 8, Jesus alludes to Psalm 45:5-9 when telling his would be followers to take up their cross (“what will a man give in exchange for his soul”). As we’ll see, this last cycle brings us back again to the themes of this Psalm.

Read Mark 10:17-31

The question

*“And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

What do you observe about the situation?:

In the parallels in Luke and Acts, we learn he is a rich, young ruler
He ran up - he was eager to see him
He knelt before him - he recognized Jesus as someone worthy of respect and authority
The man is wealthy and powerful, yet he knows something is lacking. All of that material prosperity is not enough to ensure his soul is secure, and he knows it. Jesus alluded to Psalm 49 in Chapter 8 (“what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”) and this man’s predicament points us back to Psalm 49:5-9.
If anything, this man would on the surface be a highly desirable candidate for inclusion in the kingdom work - his status and wealth could serve Jesus’ team very well. It would not be surprising if this thought passed through the disciples minds as well.

Questions:

What do you make of his question?
- What does he mean by “eternal life?” What does he have in view? When the promised kingdom comes, how can he be sure to be able to take part in it?

Comments:

“The point is not ‘faith versus works’ in a Pauline sense. It is rather the man’s love for riches over his love for God, and his trust in those riches instead of his humble dependence on God.” (Strauss)

The Answer

And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’ ”

- What do you make of Jesus’ response? - Why the rebuke about “good”? Is the man insincere in his ‘good teacher’ remark (e.g. Mk 12:14?), or is Jesus pointing him higher, teaching him that only God is good and if he is right that Jesus is the good teacher than Jesus is on a level with God? - What about the list of commandments? - He lists commandments 6 ,7, 8, 9, says “do not defraud” for 10, and 5 in that order - Missing? The commands against idolatry and for sabbath

Comments:

“Jesus preemptively challenges this notion of goodness. In comparison to God’s perfection, no one is good and worthy of eternal life…Jesus nullifies the man’s assertion about his own goodness before he has made it and sets up the conclusion that no one can merit God’s salvation.” (Strauss)
Substitution of “do not defraud” for “do no covet” may reflect more direct application to the rich, whose particular problem would be acquire their riches through fraud or corruption.

The Lesson

And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

“And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.””

Observations:

The man heeds Jesus’ rebuke and withholds calling him “good teacher” this time, ironically, while making the claim to be good himself
- The man is confident in his (outward) compliance, although clearly he senses something is lacking or else he would not have approached Jesus to begin with. (Strausss)
Jesus does not deny the man’s claim to have kept the commands. On the contrary, he looks on him with love.
- Jesus’ love for him is what motivates him to give the strong reply. He’s not trying to spare his feelings, but to love him.
- We should be hesitant to question the man’s motives or sincerity given this sentence.
The reward:
- You will have treasure in heaven
- You will inherit eternal life
The cost was too high for this young man (at least for the moment). He is a walking example of Mk 4:19 - “the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.”
Contrast the children of the previous verses with the wealthy young ruler. They have no wealth and status and (effectively) nothing to lose, and they are welcomed into the kingdom, whereas this man with much of both has withheld himself from the thing he came desiring.

Jesus says it’s particularly difficult for the wealthy to enter the kingdom

It’s difficult for all to enter, but particularly for the wealthy

C.S. Lewis

All things (e.g. a camel’s journey through
a needle’s eye) are possible, it’s true;
But picture how the camel feels, squeezed out
In one long bloody thread from tail to snout.

It’s actually impossible for any to be saved if left to themselves, but with God anyone can be saved

Questions:

What is the command and Why did Jesus give this particular command? Is this a command to all disciples?
- Sell all you have and give to the poor
  - Get rid of your idols
  - The most basic possession a first century Jew would have to give up would be his land, his share in the holy land, that would be passed down to children. “We should not be so surprised, then, that when Jesus reinterpreted the ten commandments, in response to the question about attaining the age to come, he replaced the first three commandments with his own invitation, challenge, summons and implied warning: sell all you have, and follow me. Loyalty to Israel’s god, astonishingly, would now take the form of loyalty to Jesus; to get rid of ancestral land would be the equivalent of throwing away pagan idols.”” (Wright, N. T. (1996). Jesus and the victory of God (pp. 646–647)
- Follow me
  - Allegiance to Jesus is in the place where allegiance to YHWH is in the original 10
- It’s clear that this was not a universal command just from the existence of wealthy among Jesus’ disciples. “Joseph of Arimathea remained a property-owner (Mk. 15:43–6/Mt. 27:57–60/Lk. 23:50–3/Jn. 19:38–42); Zacchaeus, an apparently fitting target for the command to give everything away, parted with only half (Lk. 19:8)—though he did restore his victims fourfold, too. For other warnings cf. e.g. Lk. 6:24; 12:13–21; 14:33; 16:1–15, 19–31.” (Wright, N. T. (1996). Jesus and the victory of God)
- Some of Jesus’ other teaching on wealth:
  - Lay up treasures in heaven - Matt. 6:19-21;
  - Guard against covetousness - Lk. 12:13-15;
  - Anyone who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple - Lk. 14:33;
  - Woes against the rich and powerful - Luke 6:20-26
  - The parable of the rich fool about those who store up things for themselves but are not rich toward God - Luke 12:16-21
  - Sell your possessions and give to the needy - Luke 12:33-34
  - You cannot serve God and mammon - Luke 16:13
  - The great reversal coming to the rich who ignore the needs of the poor - Luke 16:19-31
- While this command was particular to the young man, the early church in Jerusalem took much the same approach as reported in Acts 2:45 & 4:34-37
- See also Paul’s directive to the rich in 1 Timothy: “As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.” (1 Tim. 6:17-19)
What is your reaction to this command? What would be your instinctive response?
- This is a particularly difficult one in our extremely wealthy society. Every one of us, even those of us living paycheck to paycheck could be considered rich by almost any standard. We all know that wealth does not even bring satisfaction much less salvation, but the thought of parting with it is still very grievous.
- “Before we dismiss this passage as “for others,” we need to read the whole of Scripture, which consistently teaches (1) the seductive and destructive power of riches, (2) the need to reach out generously to those in need, and (3) that nothing we do for ourselves can merit eternal life. It is only through faith in God’s gift of grace - coming like a child - that we can be saved.” (Strauss)
Why were the disciples amazed?
- “Some Jews assumed, perhaps on the basis of a facile reading of Deuteronomy and certain psalms, that wealth was a sign of YHWH’s favour. It signalled, apparently, that one was already in receipt of covenant blessings. This explains the disciples’ great surprise (‘they were exceedingly astonished’, Mark 10:25) at being told that rich people would have difficulty inheriting the kingdom. They assumed that the rich were going to be part of the kingdom; the question for them was, who else?” Wright, N. T. (1996). Jesus and the victory of God (p. 302)
- The blessing of the LORD brings wealth (Prov. 10:22)
What do you make of Peter’s comments?
- Peter brings up that they themselves have obeyed the command that Jesus gave, and Jesus acknowledges it.
- “It is curious that Peter says, ‘We have left everything,’ since it seems he still possessed a home and a fishing boat (1:29; 3:9; 4:1, 36; c.f. John 21:3). This suggests, at least, that Jesus does not call on everyone to divest of everything they own to follow him. Since Jesus does not deny Peter’s claim, it seems that ‘giving up all’ means sacrificing those things that represent a roadblock to authentic faith and trust in God.” (Strauss)
In what way does the believer gain homes and family and fields in the present age?
- “The likely answer is that all believers stand together as one family - as brothers and sisters in Christ - whose possessions are ultimately God’s and so shared by all.” (Strauss)
- “With persecutions” points to the “present but not yet fully consummated” nature of the kingdom blessings.
What is the intent of the last “but” and how it relates the the saying before?
- “In contrast to the rich and powerful, who appear to be first in the present age, stand the persecuted disciples, who have forsaken all to follow Jesus. In terms of spiritual realities, they are receiving far more in the present age and eternal life in the age to come. “(Strauss)
- Is there possibly a subtle rebuke against Peter here, who steps forward (as a representative of the disciples) and shows how they are first in leaving all?
How does this passage challenge the “prosperity gospel” that is so prevalent in the church today?
- Consider that this man’s rich blessing would (and probably was) seen as a sign of his being an obedient servant and richly blessed. To some extent, that’s probably true, but that is insufficient. The path of discipleship and eternal life requires him to forsake that prosperity.
How do we balance the tension between enjoying God’s good gifts and not being attached to them?
- Some intentionality is necessary here.

Anecdotes:

“Annie Dillard tells of the ill-fated Franklin expedition to the Arctic in 1845. That odyssey was a turning point in Arctic exploration because of its well-publicized failure. The preparations made were more suitable for the Royal Navy officer’s club in England than for the frigid Arctic. The explorers made room on their ships for a large library, a hand organ, china place settings, cut-glass wine goblets, and sterling silver flatware instead of additional coal for their steam engines. The ornate silver flatware was engraved with the individual officer’s initials and family crests. Search parties found clumps of bodies of men who had set off to walk for help when their supplies ran out. One skeleton wore his fine blue cloth uniform edged with silk braid, hardly a match for the bitter arctic cold. Another apparently chose to carry with him the place setting of sterling silver flatware. What must he have been thinking to take sterling silver tableware in a search for help and food? One cannot imagine that any of these sailor adventurers would have said, as they neared death on the frozen landscape, “I wish I had brought more silver place settings.” Our hanging on to things that are ultimately useless will look no less foolish. Many cannot envision life without things they cherish. They are in danger of losing the only life that counts.” Garland, D. E. (1996). Mark (p. 408).

The Third Cycle

Mark 10:32–45

The Third Prediction

“And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”

The Disciples Error

*And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John.

Observations

The disciples have still not grasped that Jesus’ kingdom is very different from their vision of kingdoms of this world.
James’ sharing in this cup is documented in Acts 12:2.

Questions

What does Jesus’ question - “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” - indicate?
- Sharing in Christ’s kingdom implies sharing in his sufferings
- A similar theme as in 8:34, and Paul teaches this explicitly in Romans 8:17
- On the other hand, only Christ truly drinks the cup and is baptized with the baptism, and their (our) participation is vicarious: “This gives us the clue to how the disciples were involved in Jesus’ death. Jesus died for the many; he drank the cup for others; he was baptized on behalf of others. The vicarious nature of his death means that James and John, along with the many, drank the cup that he drank and were baptized with the baptism with which he was baptized. To use Paul’s language (cf. Rom. 6), they will die and rise with Christ, because his death will be in their place and on their behalf.” (Bolt, P. G. (2004). The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark’s Gospel )

The Lesson

And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Observations:

The desire to rule and exercise authority over others is a worldly/pagan practice. In Jesus’ kingdom, those who serve most will be placed first. Jesus demonstrates this leadership by his own sacrificial life.
Ransom for many - cf. Isaiah 53
- Jesus offers himself as a substitute, taking the penalty upon himself that others deserve.
- Again the question of Psa 49:5-9 comes to the foreground, with Jesus providing the answer that while someone cannot ransom their own life, Jesus can and does provide a ransom in their place.

Questions:

Does ambition have a place in the church? If so, what does it look like?
It’s easy to read James and John and scoff a bit at their presumption, but how far is it from our own hearts when we examine our own prayer requests and priorities?
If Jesus’ ransoms us from our helpless estate, what is the resulting relationship we now have? 1 Cor. 6:19

Commentary:

“Jesus labels the desire to dominate others as pagan—pagans want seats of power and want to lord it over others. The disciples have taken pagan rulers as their models, whereas they need to take Jesus as their model. The way of Jesus is self-giving service. They are not to be on the receiving end of service but on the giving end.” (Garland, 412-413)
“While Jesus is talking about all that he is about to give, the disciples come with a shopping list of all they want to get. The absurdity of this scene brings the judgment of the cross on our selfish ambitions and our maneuvering for position and power.” (Garland, 414-415)

Mark 8

Tue, 16 May 2023 13:35:00 +0000

Feeding the Four Thousand (8:1-10) Mark 8:1–10 (ESV) — 1 In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him and said to them, 2 “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. 3 And if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way. And some of them have come from far away.” 4 And his disciples answered him, “How can one feed these people with bread here in this desolate place?” 5 And he asked them, “How many loaves do you have?” They said, “Seven.” 6 And he directed the crowd to sit down on the ground. And he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and they set them before the crowd. 7 And they had a few small fish. And having blessed them, he said that these also should be set before them. 8 And they ate and were satisfied. And they took up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full. 9 And there were about four thousand people. And he sent them away. 10 And immediately he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the district of Dalmanutha.

Likely a mostly gentile crowd this time
This crowd has been with Jesus 3 days (!) rather than merely the whole day
Jesus once again calls on his disciples to act and trying to elicit faith, but the disciples once again show ignorance of Jesus’ power.

Pharisees Sign (8:11-13) Mark 8:11–13 (ESV) — 11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him. 12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.” 13 And he left them, got into the boat again, and went to the other side.

What are the Pharisees looking for?
- A sign from heaven demonstrating Jesus’ authority
Why won’t Jesus give it to them?
- They have received a bunch of clear signs, but refuse to believe
- They are putting God to the test like Satan in the wilderness

Leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod (8:14-21) Mark 8:14–21 (ESV) — 14 Now they had forgotten to bring bread, and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. 15 And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” 16 And they began discussing with one another the fact that they had no bread. 17 And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” 20 “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” 21 And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

Jesus speaks a mini-parable about the “leaven of the Pharisees and Herod” - what is his point?
- Both the Pharisees and Herod had in common their unbelief in the face of Jesus’ work
- Matthew refers to the teaching of the Pharisees, Luke refers to their hypocrisy
What did the disciples understand him to mean?
What’s so striking about the disciples concern about forgetting bread?
- After witnessing Jesus feed 5000 people with 5 loaves, and 4000 people with 7 loaves, they’re upset about how to feed 12 people with 1 loaf when Jesus is in the boat with them.
- Jesus calls on them to remember what he’s already shown them and rebukes them for their hardness of hearts.
- Are there areas in your life where you find yourself doubting the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Lord Jesus? Where does the text hit home for you in this regard?

The Two-Stage Healing (8:22-26) Mark 8:22–26 (ESV) — 22 And they came to Bethsaida. And some people brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him. 23 And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” 24 And he looked up and said, “I see people, but they look like trees, walking.” 25 Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 26 And he sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.”

This healing completes the fulfillment of the Isa. 35 passage we talked about last week with the healing of the deaf mute. “Isaiah 35:5–6 (ESV) — *5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; 6 then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy. *”
This is the only place in the NT where Jesus heals and the effect is only partial until he takes another action. The position of this healing in the narrative gives every indication that it is a an acted parable points us to the gradual opening of the eyes of the disciples we see in the chapters ahead.
Like the disciples having their eyes gradually opened to the true nature of Christ’s Messiahship and what it means to be a disciple, so also we experience similar progressive growth in our understanding of who Christ is and how we should live.

Peter’s Confession (8:27-30) 27 And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” 29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” 30 And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

The scene of this confession is striking - this is Caesarea Philippi, which is the farthest north you could be and still be in Israel, and it was a pagan place as well with a lot of monuments to the emperor.
Jesus polls them about what people are saying about Jesus, then elicits the response of faith from Peter.
What he says the clearest human confession yet of Jesus’ messiahship.
If the book stopped here, with everything you seen so far and ended with Peter’s confession - what is the picture of Jesus you would have?
- This confession is the hinge of the book, bridging all the demonstrations of power in the first half of the book with all the weakness demonstrated and discussed in the 2nd half of the book.
Why does he command them to say nothing? Because they still do not fully see.
Here’s what a 1st century Jew who believed in a coming Messiah would expect:

23(21) Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David, At the time in the which Thou seest, O God, that he may reign over Israel Thy servant. 24(22) And gird him with strength, that he may shatter unrighteous rulers, 25 And that he may purge Jerusalem from nations that trample (her) down to destruction. (23) Wisely, righteously 26 he shall thrust out sinners from (the) inheritance, He shall destroy the pride of the sinner as a potter’s vessel. (24) With a rod of iron he shall break in pieces all their substance, 27 He shall destroy the godless nations with the word of his mouth; (25) At his rebuke nations shall flee before him, And he shall reprove sinners for the thoughts of their heart. 28(26) And he shall gather together a holy people, whom he shall lead in righteousness, And he shall judge the tribes of the people that has been sanctified by the Lord his God. 29(27) And he shall not suffer unrighteousness to lodge any more in their midst, Nor shall there dwell with them any man that knoweth wickedness, 30 For he shall know them, that they are all sons of their God. (28) And he shall divide them according to their tribes upon the land, 31 And neither sojourner nor alien shall sojourn with them any more. (29) He shall judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness. Selah. 32(30) And he shall have the heathen nations to serve him under his yoke; And he shall glorify the Lord in a place to be seen of (?) all the earth; 33 And he shall purge Jerusalem, making it holy as of old: 34(31) So that nations shall come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, Bringing as gifts her sons who had fainted, 35 And to see the glory of the Lord, wherewith God hath glorified her. (32) And he (shall be) a righteous king, taught of God, over them, 36 And there shall be no unrighteousness in his days in their midst, For all shall be holy and their king the anointed of the Lord. (Charles, R. H., ed. (1913). Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Vol. 2, pp. 649–650). Clarendon Press.)
And that Peter sees rightly that he is God’s Messiah is clear from Jesus’ preaching the kingdom, healing and casting out demons, raising the dead, feeding the multitudes.

Between here and the account of the healing of the blind man Bartimaeus in 10:46, we have 3 repeating cycles interspersed in the narrative that contain the same elements:

Jesus teaches clearly about his coming death and resurrection
The disciples say or do something stupid
Jesus uses this to teach about the true nature of being a disciple What will become clear as we move along is that the true meaning of Christ’s messiahship (which Peter clearly confesses) cannot be correctly known until viewed through the prism of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Cycle 1 (8:31-38) Mark 8:31–38 (ESV) — 31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” 34 And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. 36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? 37 For what can a man give in return for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

Jesus tells them about his coming suffering, speaking plainly and not in parables
- He says in v31 - the Son of Man must suffer many things - Why the “must” here?
- He says the Son of Man (which harks back to Daniel 7) but then mentions the suffering (which directs our attention to Isa. 53). The glorious Son of Man and the ignoble suffering servant are one and the same in Jesus.
Peter rebukes him and is in turn rebuked by Jesus
- Peter reveals he is still partially blind despite his great confession. He sees that Jesus is the Messiah, but he doesn’t yet grasp what that means. He has an agenda for Jesus that doesn’t fit Jesus’ own agenda.
- What are some ways that those in the church today still envision Jesus in their own image?
Jesus teaches that following him means willingness to walk the path of suffering and rejection, accepting the shame from this sinful world in exchange for the glory of being united with Christ. On the contrary, pursuing the life of self-gratification leads to the loss of true life.
- (1) Say no self - What does this mean? What does Christian self-denial look like? What are some false forms?
  - It is not referring to ascetism or living a life of self-denial
  - It’s a denial of autonomy and self-sufficiency (I am not my own)
- (2) Say yes to their own death - Willingness to lose anything, up to and including life, for the sake of Christ and the gospel.
  - We sometimes use language of “taking up the cross” in a glib way, but the message to the original hearers would have been crystal clear. To bear a cross meant an terrible, humiliating, excruciating death to people in the first century.
  - Why is this the most logical response for a follower of Jesus?
- (3) Follow Jesus without shame How does this challenge you?

Cycle 2 (9:30-37) Mark 9:30–37 (ESV) — 30 They went on from there and passed through Galilee. And he did not want anyone to know, 31 for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.” 32 But they did not understand the saying, and were afraid to ask him. 33 And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. 35 And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” 36 And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

Jesus tells them about his coming suffering
They don’t understand, and are arguing with one another about who is the greates
Jesus teaches that in his Kingdom, it is the one who is last and the one who is servant of all who is the greatest.

Cycle 3 (10:32-45) Mark 10:32–45 (ESV) — 32 And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, 33 saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. 34 And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.” 35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” 41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. 42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Jesus tells them about his coming suffering
James and John posture for a position at Jesus right and left hand when he comes into his kingdom
Jesus teaches that in the world, the rules lord it over their subjests and great exercises authority over the least, but in Jesus kingdom it is the opposite. Just as he has come not to be served but to serve, so all who would lead in his kingdom must be slaves, giving their lives in service to others.

Mark 6

Tue, 25 Apr 2023 13:35:00 +0000

Mark 6:1–52 (ESV) —

6:1-6: Reception in Nazareth

1 He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” 5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.

This section we see another set of human questions showing confusion about who Jesus is that follows right on the heals of demons declaring who he is.
They are amazed at him, but ultimately unbelieving (they took offense). What do their questions indicate was the source of their offense?
- They are familiar with Jesus’, his humble beginnings, and lack of pedigree and that is a scandal to them. How could the Son of God, the Messiah, be from here? Who does this guy think he is?
  - Does a similar familiarity today keep people from seeing who Jesus really is?
  - What difficulties have you found bringing Christ to those who were closest to you before becoming a Christian?
  - How do we risk taking similar offense when the pedigree of a messenger of Christ doesn’t align with our expectations (e.g. background, degrees, etc.)? c.f. 2 Cor. 4 “jars of clay”; John Bunyan the tinker, etc.

This verse testifies to the genuine humanity of Jesus. Until he began his ministry, his deity was so hidden that even people in his hometown, who had known him well since childhood, had no idea that he was also fully God. (ESV Study Bible)

It says he could do no mighty work (except heal a few sick!) because of their unbelief. Why would Jesus’ power be limited?
- The answer seems to be that their unbelief kept them from coming to Jesus at all. The few that were sick and came to him were still healed.
They were astounded at his teaching but v6 it’s Jesus’ turn to marvel at their unbelief.
- Do you have a category for this? We know, and Mark helps us to see, that Jesus is fully God, but he is also fully human. As a human on earth, he did not know everything. Here he is described as being surprised by Nazareth. These people know so much about Jesus, and still they do not believe. Jesus is surprised that their hearts are so hard.

6:7-13, 30: Jesus Sends Out the Twelve (and they Return)

7 And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts— 9 but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. 10 And he said to them, “Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there. 11 And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” 12 So they went out and proclaimed that people should repent. 13 And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them. … 30 The apostles returned to Jesus and told him all that they had done and taught.

This section creates another sandwich with v.30 connecting back to this, with the death of John the Baptist in the middle.
Jesus sends the twelve (and eventually he would send more cf. Luke 10:1) out to do carry forward the work he’s been doing - preaching repentance, casting out demons, healing the sick. Some observations:
- The disciples are portrayed throughout the gospels as being a little slow on the uptake, not always grasping the significance of things. But here Jesus entrusts them to carry forward his mission to Israel, which means they had to have understood enough to preach the message, even with all the gaps in their knowledge. This should be a comfort to us as we do the same, knowing that Christ has equipped and will equip us with the knowledge we need to serve where he’s called us, regardless of whatever deficiencies we may yet have.
- It says ‘he gave them authority’ - this is the basis for all of the Church’s work in the world. We are not perfect, but we have Christ’s authority - as Paul says we hold this treasure in “jars of clay” and by his authority we can be Christ to the rest of the world.
They are commanded to travel extremely light. What could be the point of this?
- Jesus wants them to not be over-resourced and self-sufficient, but to need and accept hospitality from the people they meet with and ultimately depend on God for providing.
- While this command is specific to the disciples and we’re not specifically called to engage in missions with no resources, the principle of being devoted to the task at the expense of personal comfort and the willingness to depend on the provision of God at the hands of others still very much applicable.
- Likewise, we should view it as all of our responsibility, even those who may not be actively going into the mission field, to be willing to provide for and help support those who are working in service to the gospel.
Why did Jesus tell them to remain in the first house they come to?
- Respect for the hosts and the hospitality shown
- Avoid the temptation to get established and then accept “upgrades” in accomodations by more prominent people.
- We must be careful to show no partiality in our ministry, by giving preference to the wealthy or prominent.
What do you make of the command to “shake the dust off your feet”?
- This would be something Jews did when leaving a Gentile house. The witness is one of judgment against these Jews who are to be treated as outside the people of God for their rejection of the message of the kingdom.
- This is effectively a testimony against them of their unbelief and the expectation of pending judgment
- Is this ever appropriate response today? It seems like this is most appropriate to the urgency of bringing the message to Israel during Jesus’ day.

6:14-29: Death of John the Baptist

14 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known. Some said, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” 15 But others said, “He is Elijah.” And others said, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” 16 But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.” 17 For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because he had married her. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” 19 And Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death. But she could not, 20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly. 21 But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his nobles and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. 22 For when Herodias’s daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests. And the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give it to you.” 23 And he vowed to her, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, up to half of my kingdom.” 24 And she went out and said to her mother, “For what should I ask?” And she said, “The head of John the Baptist.” 25 And she came in immediately with haste to the king and asked, saying, “I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.” 26 And the king was exceedingly sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her. 27 And immediately the king sent an executioner with orders to bring John’s head. He went and beheaded him in the prison 28 and brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body and laid it in a tomb.

Why put this story here, right betwen the sending out of the disciples and their return?

This story situated between the sending out of the disciples adds some dark overtones to the account and clues us in that this coming kingdom and the work of the Messiah won’t look as expected. John is very much the forerunner to the Messiah, and we can see the suffering of John as a foreshadowing of the suffering of the Messiah.
- Like Herod, who is intrigued and afraid to put John to death but has his hand forced by Herodias, later Pilate will be hesitant to put Jesus to death but have his hands forced by the Jewish leadership.
John’s death not only foreshadows Jesus’ suffering and death, but is sandwiched between the sending and returning of the disciples to connect the disciples to the same reality. Although they will be empowered to continue the work of Jesus, they should also expect to face the same opposition.
- The prospect of death when bringing the message of Christ to unbelieving power is real.
- c.f Jesus’ teaching in Mark 8:34
This is the essence of the Christian life in between the ages - there is much victory over darkness and much rejoicing, and there is also much opposition and much suffering for the name of Christ. Hebrews 11 captures this dichotomy so well:

Hebrews 11:32–38 (ESV) — 32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. 36 Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated— 38 of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

We also see a contrast between Herod’s lavish (and disturbing) banquet, with the much different banquet put on by a much different king in the next section.

6:31-44: Feeding of the 5000

31 And he said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while.” For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat. 32 And they went away in the boat to a desolate place by themselves. 33 Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them. 34 When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things. 35 And when it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, “This is a desolate place, and the hour is now late. 36 Send them away to go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” 37 But he answered them, “You give them something to eat.” And they said to him, “Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?” 38 And he said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go and see.” And when they had found out, they said, “Five, and two fish.” 39 Then he commanded them all to sit down in groups on the green grass. 40 So they sat down in groups, by hundreds and by fifties. 41 And taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing and broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples to set before the people. And he divided the two fish among them all. 42 And they all ate and were satisfied. 43 And they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish. 44 And those who ate the loaves were five thousand men.

Jesus and the disciples try to get away privately, but the crowds are persistent
We see Jesus showing compassion here in two ways:
- To the disciples first, seeking to bring them away for a time of rest after their mission. It is appropriate and right to seek respite from the steady flow of busy ministry. Jesus is not calling us to breakdown from over exertion, even in the midst of the urgent and time-bound mission to Israel.
- To the crowds second, not getting angry that they were spoiking this time of retreat but realizing they were like sheep without a shepherd.
This account of the feeding of the 5000 is rich with OT echoes, and I think it would be instructive to consider some of them here:
- The first few involve Moses with the people of Israel in the wilderness:
  - The well-known story of God providing manna for the people
  - Numbers 11:21-23 where the people demand meat, and God tells Moses he will give them meat.
    - 21 But Moses said, “The people among whom I am number six hundred thousand on foot, and you have said, ‘I will give them meat, that they may eat a whole month!’ 22 Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, and be enough for them? Or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, and be enough for them?” 23 And the LORD said to Moses, “Is the LORD’s hand shortened? Now you shall see whether my word will come true for you or not.”
  - Numbers 27:15-17, where Moses requests that the Lord send someone to lead the people after he is gone.
    - 15 Moses spoke to the LORD, saying, 16 “Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation 17 who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in, that the congregation of the LORD may not be as sheep that have no shepherd.”
- 2 Kings 4:41-44, where Elisha feeds 100 men with 20 loaves.
  - 42 A man came from Baal-shalishah, bringing the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley and fresh ears of grain in his sack. And Elisha said, “Give to the men, that they may eat.” 43 But his servant said, “How can I set this before a hundred men?” So he repeated, “Give them to the men, that they may eat, for thus says the LORD, ‘They shall eat and have some left.’ ” 44 So he set it before them. And they ate and had some left, according to the word of the LORD.
- Ezekiel 34:1-16ff, where the Lord indicts the shepherds of Israel for abusing and abandoning the sheep and promises to care for them himself, and appoint one shepherd, a new David, the Messiah, to watch over them. Also, Jeremiah 23:1-6:
  - “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. 2 Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD. 3 Then I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. 4 I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, declares the LORD. 5 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’
- Psalm 23:1-3, the Lord is our shepherd and leads us to green pastures - notice the emphasis in the passage that the people sit down in groups on the green grass
  - The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters. He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
- Isaiah 25:6-9, which depicts the great end times salvation as a feast on a mountain:
  - On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. It will be said on that day, “Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.”
The main takeaway from all of this: Jesus is the Lord who provides for his people in the wilderness, he’s the good shepherd who guides his sheep to green pastures and restores their soul, he’s the greater Moses and the greater Elisha, and in contrast to the kings/shepherds who have abandoned their people, he will not abandon them and they will feast together in the great end-time banquet.
- Is there an application here as well concerning how Jesus does not shy away from meeting the physical needs of the people? He does not teach and then dismiss them to go find food (as the disciples proposed) but teaches and provides. (James 2:15-16; 1 John 3:17-19)
- We can also see here a general encouragement that God can and does provide what is needed for those who depend on him. It is not through our extensive planning and effort, but through our dependence on him.

6:45-52: Jesus walks on water

45 Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46 And after he had taken leave of them, he went up on the mountain to pray. 47 And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. 48 And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, 49 but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out, 50 for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.” 51 And he got into the boat with them, and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, 52 for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

The disciples are struggling again on the water, and this time without Jesus
He walks on the water to them
What is meant by “He meant to pass by them”?
- This response is exactly what happens in Job. God alone walks on the sea (Job 9:8), but the response three verses later is, “Behold, he passes by me, and I see him not; he moves on, but I do not perceive him” (v 11).
- The passage echoes the incident where God “passed” before Moses (the same verb, parerchomai, occurs in the Septuagint of [Ex. 33:19, 22; 34:6], giving a glimpse of his glory. But it also echoes [Job 9] where Job says that it is God who “trampled the waves of the sea” ([Job 9:8]; the Septuagint has peripatōn … epi thalassēs, “walking on the sea,” using the same words as [Mark 6:48], peripatōn epi tēs thalassēs) and then also says, “he passes by me” ([Job 9:11], Gk. parerchomai). There is an implicit claim to divinity in Jesus’ actions. (ESV Study Bible)

And in 1 Kings 19:11–12, the Lord tells Elijah to stand on the mountain, “for the LORD is about to pass by.” One can conclude from these passages that when Jesus wants to pass by his disciples, he wills for them to see his transcendent majesty as a divine being and to give them reassurance.4 God cannot be fully seen, but Jesus can. The one who comes to them on the sea is not simply a successor to Moses, who fills baskets with bread in the desert. Only God can walk on the sea, and Jesus’ greeting is not simply a cheery hello to assuage the disciples’ fears. He greets them with the divine formula of self-revelation, “I am.” Isaiah 43:1–13 is significant as a backdrop for interpreting this passage. The disciples have been summoned by Jesus to pass through the waters, and Jesus is with them (Isa. 43:2). (Garland, D. E. (1996). Mark (pp. 263–264)

Key is v52 - they did not understand about the loaves, for their hearts were hardened
Jesus very clearly shows his divinity, but they are dulled to the reality.

Owen, Communion with the Triune God

Sun, 23 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0000

I read this book several years ago, and I remember it being particularly impactful and helpful. It’s not necessarily any new revelatory concepts but, among other things, just the meditation on the fatherly love of God the Father, while we were yet sinners was incredibly edifying to me.

#trinity

Communion with the Triune God

John Owen on the Work of the Holy Spirit

Thoughts on the Love of God

Part 1: Of Communion with the Father

Chapter 1

Despite outward appearances, we have a glorious and desirable fellowship with the Father and Son.
Because of sin, we are all cut off from communion with God.
Jesus Christ opened the way into bold communion with God.
Communion can relate to:
- Things and persons
- States and conditions
- Actions
All communion is grounded upon som union between parties

Our communion, then, with God consists in his communication of himself unto us, with our return unto him of that which he requires and accepts, flowing from that union which in Jesus Christ we have with him. (94)

Chapter 2

We have distinct communion with each member of the trinity.
Our communion with the Father:
- We exhibit Faith in the Father
- We have love to the Father
- Prayer and praises of worship are directed to the Father.
  
  Bowing the knee comprises the whole worship of God, both that which is moral, in the universal obedience he requires, and those peculiar ways of carrying it on which are by him appointed: “Unto me,” says the Lord, “every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” (Isa. 45:23) (99)
Our communion with the Son:
- Faith is directed to the Son
- Love is directed to the Son
- Prayer and Worship is directed to the Son
Our communion with the Spirit:
- Faith, love, and worship directed to the Spirit (it’s notable that the ability to demonstrate this in scripture is more limited by the available evidence)
We see a distinction in persons:
- When the same thing at the same time is attributed to each
- When the same thing is attributed severally and singly to each
- The example of teaching demonstrates this distinction of persons

To borrow John Frame’s paradigm: Normative - Father - Original Authority (Authoritative) Situational - Son - Purchased Treasure (Mediative) Existential - Spirit - Immediate Efficacy (Immediate)

Chapter 3

When assigning an activity to one person, the others are not excluded.
All of the persons are at work in any act.

As, suppose it to be the act of faith: It is bestowed on us by the Father: “It is not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8). It is the Father that reveals the gospel, and Christ therein (Matt. 11:25). [Authority] And it is purchased for us by the Son: “Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, to believe on him” (Phil. 1:29). In him are we “blessed with spiritual blessings” (Eph. 1:3). He bestows on us, and increases faith in us (Luke 17:5). [Mediative] And it is wrought in us by the Spirit; he administrs that “exceeding greatness of his power,” which he exercises toward them who believe, “according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead.” [Efficacy] (106)

Thoughts on the Love of God

God loves us that he might be loved
God’s love toward us is one of rest
He rejoices in his saints
In returning love to God, the saints rest in him
Both the Father’s love to use and ours to him is through Christ
The Father’s love is one of bounty, creating love in the one loved
Love to God is a deserved act of duty, consisting in:
- Rest
- Delight
- Reverence
- Obedience
The Father’s love is antecedent, both in respect to our love and also any other cause
- Our love is consequential in both respects
God’s love is like himself, immutable, ours like ourself, mutable
He loves the people, not the sin. He never alters his purpose of love, though it may look different (rebuke, chastening, etc.)

Chapter 4

Many Christians do not realize their lack when they don’t commune with God
We ought to look to the Father as one who loves us, considering:
- Whose love it is - the all satisfying God
- What kind of love - eternal, free, unchangeable, distinguishing
Look to the love of the Father, to receive it, then return love to him.
It is dishonoring to God to view him as an angry Father (speaking of saints)
A little consideration of the Father’s love is enough to draw you to him.
God loved us first, let us believe it and we will see our love rising.
The saints have eminent privilege, despite low appearances, and have a place of safe retreat in the bosom of the Father.
If we have this love and communion with the Father, let us walk in holiness.

Part 2: Of Communion with the Son Jesus Christ

Chapter 1

We are called to fellowship with Christ as Mediator
Christ delights in the fruit which believers bear
Christ is compared to all of the eminent things in creation, and his atonement is a sweet savor to God
In Christ’s view, the church is as a lily among thorns.
In Christ, the church finds refreshment and nourishment
Christ’s communion consists of:
- sweetness - refreshments of the scripture, gospel, ordinances, love
- delight - once tasting it, the church longs for it
- safety - Christ’s love protects them
- support and consolation

Chapter 2

Our fellowship with Christ is in grace
- 1) Grace of personal presence and comeliness
- 2) Grace of free favor and acceptance
- 3) The fruits
The grace of his person, referring not to his deity or human nature, but to his office of mediation
Comparisons of white and ruddy using Song of Songs…
Personal excellency of Christ consists in:
- Fitness to save
  - He is fit to save by nature of his uniting God and man
    
    The uniting of the natures of God and man in one persona made him fit to be a Savior to the uttermost. He lays his hand upon God, by partaking of his nature (Zech. 13:7); and he lays his hand upon us, by being partaker of our nature (Heb. 2:14, 16): and so becomes a days-man [arbiter], or umpire, between both. (148)
- Fulness to save
  - By his union with God, he has all that is needed to save.
- Excellency to endear
  - [[ Christ is All-Satisfying ]]

Chapter 3

The communion between Christ and us is as a husband to his wife.
The ministry of the gospel involves calling men to give themselves to this husband.
God calls people to consider his proposal. If they do, they will find:
- Honor
- Delight
The allusion to marriage is the most frequent description of Christ & Church
This communion consists in:
- A mutual resignation to each other
- Mutual conjugal affections
Christ bestows himself to the soul, with all of his excellence, to be its Savior and head.
The part of the saints is the free willing consent to receive, embrace, and submit to the Lord as husband and Savior
The soul prefers Christ above all pretenders, counting all things loss for his sake.

Digression 1

Christ is excellent and desirable in his deity
- Men cower at angels, but even angels cover their faces before his majesty. The Lord’s glory is on a whole different plain than any created thing.
- By nature of his unity human and divine, there is an infinite supply of grace in the Messiah
- The infiniteness of his grace should quench all objections to coming to him.
- Christ’s love is eternal, unchangeable, and fruitful
The excellence of his humanity:
- Free from sin
- Full of grace
- Unless a spotless Adam direct by God’s hand, this spotless Christ rose out of sinful humanity - how can this be?
  - Original sin consists of imputed guilt and derived pollution
  - Christ was free from these because:
    - He was never federally in Adam (the basis of this argument is that the determination to have Christ become incarnate took place after the fall and therefore Christ was not under the imputation of Adam’s sin)
    - He was conceived of a virgin by the Holy Spirit (assumes a standard traducian view of inherited corruption through biological descent)
- Christ is full of grace, both in kind and degree
Christ is not a God and a man, but the God-man
Because of his humanity he could suffer, because of his deity he could effectively atone
All grace was given to Christ as purchased by his death, and there to be bestowed by him as he thinks good.
This truth should drop us to worship and admiration.

This is the hidden mystery; great without controversy; admirable to eternity. What poor, low, perishing things do we spend our contemplations on! Were we to have no advantage by this astonishing dispensation, yet is excellency, glory, beauty, depths, deserve the flower of our inquiries, the vigor of our spirits, the substance of our time; but when, with, our life, our peace, our joy, our inheritance, our eternity, our all, lies herein, shall not the thoughts of it always dwell in our hearts, always refresh and delight our souls? (172)
Christ is Lord of All!

He gives eternal life to his elect; ruling them in the power of God (Mic. 5:4), until he bring them to himself: and for his enemies, his arrows are sharp in their hearts (Psa. 45:5); he dips his vesture in their blood (Isa. 63:3). O how glorious is he in his authority over his enemies! in this world he terrifies, frightens, awes, concines, brusies their hearts and consciences - fills them with fear , terror, disquietment, until they yield him feigned obedience; and sometimes with outward jusgmenets bruises, breaks, turns the wheel upon them - stains all his vesture with their blood - fills the earth with their carcasses (Psa. 110:6), and at last will gather them all together - beast, false prophet, nations, etc. - and cast them into that lake that burns with fire and brimstone (Rev. 19:20). (172)
He is glorious in every way:
- in his throne
- in his commission
- in his name
- in his scepter
- in his attendants
- in his subjects
- in his way of rule
- in the issue of his kingdom
Allegorical reading of Songs 5:10-16
- Eyes - tenderness, compassion, purity, discerning, beauty, glory
- Cheeks - sweet savor, order and beauty, eminency
- He is wholly to be desired in his:
  - Person - humanity and deity
  - Birth: becoming poor for our sakes
  - Course of life: angelic obedience in poverty
  - Death: Carried all of our sins
  - Whole employment: as mediator
  - Lovely in glory
  - Supplied of grace
  - In tender care, power, wisdom
  - In ordinances of worship
  - in vengeance
  - in pardon

Digression 2

Christ is the wisdom of God and the sole source of true knowledge. God brings to foolishness the wisdom of the wise.

The sum of all true wisdom and knowledge may be reduced to these three heads: (1) The knowledge of God, his nature and his properties. (2) The knowledge of ourselves in reference to the will of God concerning us. (3) Skill to walk in communion with God. (184)
Creation reveals certain properties of God, but doesn’t reveal things such as patience longsuffering, forbearance
Attributes of God revealed to different levels:
- Some only seen in Christ
- Some brilliant in Christ
- Some distorted except for in Christ
  
  That wisdom which cannot teach me that God is love, shall ever pass for folly. Let men go to the sun, moon, and stars, to showers of rain and fruitful seasons, and answer truly what by them they learn hereof. Let them not think themselves wiser or better than those that went before them, who, to a man, got nothing by them, but being left inexcusable. (187)
Christ reveals the love of God for sinners.
God’s pardoning mercy is seen in his gracious acceptance of sinners based on Christ’s atonement.
WHoever does not know God through Christ, doesn’t know him, but an idol.
These attributes shine brightest in Christ:
- His vindictive justice
  - The death of Christ was necessary to the justice of God, evident in the fact that it was impossible to save sinners without it.
  - The severity of Christ’s punishment
- His longsuffering toward sinners
- His wisdom
- His All sufficiency
Saving knowledge of God is only found in Christ. Everything outside is judgment.
Three things are required for this knowledge of his properties:
- Manifest their glort in a way of doing good to us
- Exercise them on our behalf
- They must be fit to bring us to him.
Seeing God’s properties outside of Christ makes us flee. In Christ, they appear as glorious, and for our benefit.

This is that which brings salvation, when we shall see that God has glorified all his properties in a way of doing us good. Now, this he has done in Jesus Christ. In him has he made his justice glorious, in making all our iniquities to meet upon him, causing him to bear them all, as the scape-goat in the wilderness; not sparing him, but giving him up to death for us all - so exalting his justice and indignation against sin in a way of freeing us from the condemnation of it (Rom. 3:25; 8:33-34). In him has he made this truth glorious, and his faithfulness, in the exact accomplishment of all his absolute threatenings and promises. (198)
Christ has been committed with the exercise of the Father’s attributes and become the captain of our salvation.
True wisdom also consists in the knowledge of ourselves with respect to sin and righteousness.
All men are borth with an innate sense of their sinfulness and worthiness for judgment.
In the law, sin is further revealed, but without the Holy Spirit’s conviction, even that is flawed.
The severity of the punishment sin deserves is seen clearly in the cross and the fact that God inflicted the punishment on his only son.
- If you want to see how bad sin really is, look at the cross.
Our inability to atone for sin and our inability to obey are revealed in Christ. He shows all sacrifieces to be ineffectual.
In him, he we see our inability to obey. In Christ, sin is condemned, righteousness fulfilled by him.
Sin itself is reveraled to be crucified in us because is was crucified for us.
Sin is seen to have not only an end in displaying God’s judgment, but an even greater end in displaying his grace.

A true saving knowledge of sin is to be had only in the Lord Christ: in him may we see the desert of our iniquities, and their pollution, which could not be borne or expiated but by his blood; neither is there any wholesome view of these but in Christ. In him and his cross is discovered our universal impotency, either of atoning God’s justice or living up to his will. The death of sin is procured by, and discovered in, the death of Christ; as also the manidfestation of the riches of God’s grace in the pardoning thereof. (208)
We all have a sense that God is righteous and the question pursues us, how can I sand before him?
- The law, which is the msost common place to seek rightesousness, does not get fulfilled
- Trying to find righteousness by the law is vain, since men have already sinned and are yet unable to obey
- An answer for the demand of righteousness is only in Christ, where we find forgiveness for trnsgressions, and obedience to the law.
Walking together with another requires agreement.
- Christ brings peace and agreement between God and man, by making atonement for sin and taking the curse of the law.
- Not only lack of hostility, but acquaintance with one another is required
- There must be a path to walk in and the strength to join the way.
- Boldness to walk with God can only come in Christ
Learning alone is insufficient to lift darkness:
- The goal of learning is to remove some part of the curse of Adam but it is insufficient for the task.
- Though Adam was make perfect, his failure plunged us into farkness, and later divided tongues. Learning seeks to overcome this.
- It is unable to attain this, becaue the weak light that they work with is not spiritual, unable to be brought into proper relation to God. - the most esteemed among them (Socrates) died like a fool (223)
- Since it is a curse, the darkness cannot be lifted except by the one who made it.
Prudence alone is insufficient to bring peace among men:
- The most skilled in civil affairs often seek a contrary aim
Solomon demonstrates that the greatest learning and prudence alone is mere vanity,

Chapter 4

Love of Christ to saints: Delight, valuation, pity, bounty
Love of saints to Christ: Delight, valuation, chastity, duty
Christ shows his delight by making them friends and confiding in them
- The unbeliever does not have this mind of Christ, though they have the letter
- Christ reveals himself and his kingdom
- He enables the saints to cmmunicate their mind to him
Communication is enabled by the Spirit
- The Spirit teaches us how we should pray
- When we prat in accordance with his promises, we know we pray in his will. We must look upon them as promised in Christ and for that which is promised.
The saints earnestly seek Christ. They desire to seek and keep his company.
They cannot stand his abbsence and long for his presence
They are greedy for delight in him. A soul that notices communion missing, diligently seeks it

Chapter 5

Christ values his saints absolutely - all he does is for their sakes

For one to part with his glory, his riches, his ease, his life, his love from God - to undergo loss, shame, wrath, curse, death, for another - is an evidence of a dear valuation. (250)
- He took on flesh for us
- He became poor for us
- He became a servant for us
- He became obedient unto death
Believers value Jesus Christ above all else. Martin Luther:

Indeed, I would rather fall with Christ, than reign with Caesar. The earth is beautiful, heaven is beautiful, but the Lord Jesus is most beautiful. (251)
- They value him above their lives
- They value him above all spiritual excellence.
- The saints willingly depart with the most desirable things to lay hold of Christ.
Christ left all on account of his love for believers and he ensures that he will keep him to eternity. We cannot fathom the depth of his love, and dare not doubt his determination to preserve us to the end. (254-255)
Christ has compassion on us in our temptations and was tempted as we are.
Christ grieves with and also feeds and guides us as a shepherd.
He gives seasonable help. Christ helps us in temptation by:
- Keeping the tempted soul on a bent against sin
- Recovering the soul from the borders of sin
- Taking away the temptation itself
- Giving fresh supplies of Grace
- Giving wisdom
When a soul is overcome by temptation, Christ relieves with mercy and pardon
In afflictions, Christ is afflicted. He shows compassion by:
- interceding with his Father for their relief
- revenging their suffering
HE accomplishes his vengeance upond nations temporally, and at the last
The part of the sains in this is chastity:
- THey remain chaste by not seeking to supplant his righteousness with anything else.
- They remain chaste by cherishing the Holy Spirit which Christ sends to us
Two ways to grieve the Spirit:
- With respect to sanctification, by running against him into unholiness and defilement.
  
  They labor instantly not to grieve the Holy Spirit by loose and foolish, by careless and negligent walking, whihc he has sent to dwell and abide with them. Therefore shall no anger, wrath, malice, envy dwell in their hearts; because they are contrary to the holy, meek Spirit of Christ, which he has given to dwell with them. THey attend to his motions, make use of his assistance, improve his figts, and nothing lies more upon their spirits than that they may walk worthy of the presence of this holy substitute of the Lord Jesus Christ (265)

Chapter 6

Purchased grace - all that Christ has procured for us, founded upon his work that is counted towards us by virtue of our union with him.
The source:
- Obedience
- Suffering
- Intercession
The nature:
- Justification
- Sanctification
- Privilege
Discussions on Christ’s active obedience applied to us
Active Obedience debate:
- Only preparatory for sacrifice
- When combined with death
- Reckoned to our account as obedience
The fact that Christ obeyed in ways that were not required for a perfect sacrifice indicates something further is intended
Christ obeyed the law and took the curses of the law. We disobeyed the law and suffered not the curses.

Chapter 7

We are accepted with God by a removal of bad and a bestowal of good.
He not only makes us accepted but cleanses us to be acceptable.
He cleanses us from the stain of nature, transgressions, and good deeds. “..in our best duties we have defilements.”

Chapter 8

On the part of Christ, this requires:
- What he did, he did for us - fulfilling righteousness - imputation
- What he suffered, he suffered for us - satisfaction for disobedience - Absolution
Benefits of Christ’s work were effective the moment he began to undertake them. They were solemnly declared upon completion of the of the work.

God having made him under the law, for them who were so (Gal. 4:4); in their stead, obnoxious to the punishment due to sin, made him sin (2 Cor. 5:21); and so gave justice, and law, and all the consequences of the curse thereof, power against him (Isa. 53:6) - upon his undergoing of that which was required of him (Isa. 53:12), God looses the pains of death, accepts him, and is well pleased with him, as to the performance and discharge of his work (John 17:3-6); pronounces him free from the obligation that was on and which his soul desired. Hereon are all the promises of God made to Christ, and their accomplishment - all the encouragements given him to ask and make demand of the things originally engaged for to him (Psa. 2:8) (which he did accordingly, John 17) - founded and built.

It is accomplished effectually by Christ, but applied personally according to plan for the praise of God’s glorious grace.
Goal (Adoption) -> Means (Christ) -> Way (Redemption) -> End (Praise of Grace)
We cannot be saved by works because God does them.
We are required to work because God has ordained that we walk in them. It is the will of God.
- Our holy obedience is the special end of the work of the Father, Son, and Spirit.
It is necessary:
1. For God’s glory and honor
2. For our own honor, peace, and usefulness
3. For world’s conviction, conversion, and benefit
Benefits to the justified:
1. They are accepted into friendship with God and should be holy
2. They have been given new hearts, and should be holy

Holiness In the New Covenant

The saints recognize that Christ’s righteousness alone is able to make them acceptable to God.
They find their own righteousness lacking.

When a man who lives upon convictions has got some enlargements in duties, some conquest over a sin or temptation, he hugs himself, like Micah when he had got a Levite to be his priest [Judg. 17:12-13]: now surely it shall be well with him, now God will bless him: his heart is now at ease; he has peace in what he has done. But he who has communion with Christ, when he is highest in duties of sanctification and holiness is clearest in the apprehension of his own unprofitableness, and rejects every thought that might arise in his heart of setting his peace in them, or upon them. (311)
They rejoice in the wisdom and grace of his righteousness.
They have lasting peace with God, and rejoice that Christ is honored as preeminent
Saints remain aware of their guilt, though persuaded of their acceptance.
They consider their sins, trust that Christ has paid them; and turn to him.

Should we daily come to Christ with our sins?

What greater dishonor, then, can be done to the Lord Jesus, than to ascribe this work to any thing else - to think to get rid of our sins [by] any other way or means? Herein, then, I say, is Christ honored indeed, when we go to him with our sins by faith, and say unto him, “Lord, this is your work; this is that for which you came into the world; this is that you have undertaken to do. You call my burden, which is too heavy for me to bear; take it, blessed Redeemer, you tender your righteousness; that is my portion.” (319)

Chapter 9

Christ’s work is one of intercession for the Spirit.
- The Spirit is purchased by Christ’s death
Christ’s work is one of sending the Spirit.
- We are imparted with an habitual grace - a new spiritual life
  
  This is that which I intend by this habit of grace - a new, gracious, spiritual life, or principle, created and bestowed on the soul, where it is changed in all its faculties and affections, fitted and enabled to go forth in the way of obedience unto every divine object that is proposed unto it, according to the mind of God. (327)
  - It differs from the Spirit dwelling in us
  - From actual grace
  - It is capable of increase/decrease
- This grace is purchased by Christ
- This grace is communicated to us by Christ.

Chapter 10

Our adoption into God’s family is the fountain of our privilege.

Part 3: Of Communion with the Holy Ghost

Chapter 1

The main promise of the Spirit is John 16
The coming of the comforter is better for believers than any corporeal presence of Christ

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

That a man may have consolation in any condition, nothing is required but the present of a good, rendering the evil wherewith he is pressed inconsiderable to him. Suppose a man under the greatest calamity that can possibly befall a child of God, or a confluence of all those eviles numbered by PAul (Rom. 8:35, etc); let this man have the Holy Ghost performing the works mentioned before toward him, and, in spirit of all his evils, his consolations will abound. Suppose him to have a send of the love of God all the while shed abroad in his heart a clear witness within that he is a child of God, accepted with him, that he is sealed and marked of God for his own, that he is an heir of all the prmises of God, and the like; it is impossible that man should not triumph in all his tribulations. (392)

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

His consolations are necessary throughout the whole course of our obedience:
- Without them we shall either despise afflictions or feint under them
- Without them sin, will either heard us to a contempt or cast us down to neglect grace
- Without them, duties will either puff us up with pride, or leave us dull
- Without them, prosperity will make us carnal and weaken us against adversity
- Without them, the comforts of family will separate us from God
- Without them the calamity of the church will overwhelm us, and its prosperity will not concern us
- Without them, we shall have sidome for no work, peace in no condition, strength for no duty, success in no trial, join in no state.

“The world hates me,” may such a sould as has the SPirit say; “but my Father loves me. MEn despise me as a hypocrite; but my Father loves me as a child. I am poor in this world; but I have a rich inheritance in the love of my Father. I am straitened in all things; but there is bread enough in my Father’s house. I mourn in secret under the power of my lusts and sin, where no eyes see me; but the Father sees me, and is full of compassion. With a sense of his kindness, which is better than life, I rejoice in tribulation, glory in affliction, triumph as a conqueror. THough I am killed all the day long, all my sorrows have a bottom that may be fathomed - my trials, bounds that may be compassed; but the breadth and depth and height of the love of the Father, who can express?”

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

When we pray to one person of the trinity, we pray to the whole trinity.

Holiness In the New Covenant

Wed, 19 Apr 2023 20:53:00 +0000

The proper place of holiness in the new covenant:

Means to the end.

Though it be neither the cause, matter, nore condition of our justification, yet it is the way appointed of God for us to walk in for the obtaining of salvation. And therefore, he that has hope of eternal life purifies himself, and he is pure: and none shall ever come to that end who walks not in that way; for without holiness it is impossible to see God. (309)
A “sign and evidence of grace, that is acceptation with God”
“The whole expression of our thankfulness.”

References

Owen, Communion with the Triune God, 309

Christ is All-Satisfying

Sat, 01 Apr 2023 10:39:00 +0000

He is all-satisfying!

There is no man whatever, that has any want in reference unto the things of God, but Christ will be unto him that which he wants: I speak of those who are given him of his Father. Is he dead? Christ is life (Col. 3:4). Is he weak? Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24, 30). Has he the sense of guilt upon him? Christ is complete righteousness - “The LORD our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:6). Many poor creatures are sensible of their wants, but know not where their rememdy lies. Indeed, whether it be life or light, power or joy, all is wrapped up in him. (149)

Ordinary professors only deny Christ because they don’t know him. Men spend all of their efforts and labors after things that do not satisfy because they don’t know what’s in Christ.

Some set before them some certain end- perhaps pleasure, profit, or, in religion itself, acceptance with God; others seek after some end, but without any certainty, pleasing themselves, now with one path, now with another, with various thoughts and ways, like them (Isa. 57:10) - because something comes in by the life of they hand, they give not over though weary. In whatsoever condition you may be (either in greediness pursuing some certain end, be it secular or religious; or wandering away in your own imaginations, wearying yourselves in the largeness of your ways), compare a little what you aim at, or what you do, with what you have already heard of Jesus Christ: if anything you design be like to him, if anything you desire be equal to him, let him be rejected as one that has neither form nor comeliness in him; but if, indeed, all your ways be but vanity and vexation of spirit, in comparison of him, why do you spend your “money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which satisfies not?” (150)

References

Owen, Communion with the Triune God, 149-150

The Oppressors of Wokeism

Sat, 01 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0000

An uneducated anecdotal observation -

If you observe the pattern of politics in any authoritarian state in the Middle East or Asia, specifically those where the discrepancy between the life circumstances of the population when compared to the developed world at large is substantial, you will notice the common thread that the government has identified and promoted among the people and outside enemy who is primarily to be blamed for the daily economic and social hardships being experienced. This blame is not only historical (past actions that have contributed) but ongoing (they are still doing it). In some (many?) cases, there is legitimate grievance to point to, but never in proportion to the plight of the people and rarely is the blame properly directed. Rather, the outside enemy has become a scapegoat to serve as cover for the ruling class of that nation and to properly direct the growing unhappiness of the populace with their disparate circumstances. An authoritarian government’s grasp on power is always tenuous due to the need to control a vastly larger number of people, and especially when representatives of those people are included in the armed forces that supply the muscle for maintaining control. In such cases, maintaining the scapegoat narrative is of the utmost importance for maintaining a secure grasp on power. A similar thing seems to be at play in the United States among the (predominantly white, though decreasingly so as the education system produces fruit) upper class elites in government and academia, who are the chief proponents of “woke-ism” (colloquial summary name for the various forms of critical race and gender theory actively applied to politicial, social, and business life). The very real history of racism in this country (and now increasingly gender and sexual identity discrimination), which is undeniably still present in some form, has been marshalled by this group to serve as the scapegoat for the plight of minority classes in this nation, both real and perceived. The observable reality is that the largest discrepancy in outcomes is seen among urban minority populations who have suffered under years (decades) of economic and social disadvantage. This is real, and is tragic. What the scapegoat narratives (which focus on enemies such as White Supremacy, Christian Colonialism, Donald Trump, Rich Conservatives, et al.) tend to cover up is the fact that the vast majority of urban minority populations have been governed by representatives of the same upper class elites who are the most vocal advocates of “woke-ism.” This tenure extends to greater than 50 years or more, in some cases. Leaving aside national politics which has a tendency to fluctuate (but maybe less than the R vs. D would imply), and focusing just on the local and regional control, the control of policy has been almost universal in these areas. Without denying the reality of outside harm and the existence of real racial animosity (although the predominant form is more likely to be socio-economic prejudice rather than the frequently thrown about “white supremacy”), it is worth giving a critical eye to the extremely vocal promulgators of thought and speech policy and assess whether “the lady doth protest too much” in this case.

Thoughts on the Love of God

Wed, 29 Mar 2023 09:05:00 +0000

God the Father loves us

The work of Christ does not make the Father love us, but is a result of his love

According to Owen, the whole movement of the biblical drama of redemption points in a different direction. Jesus is not the one who convinces the Father to love us, but, rather, the Son of God becomes incarnate in light of the Father’s eternal and free love toward us. The Father is not at odds with the Son, but rather God the Father is love, and out of his love he sent his Son to die for our sins - “this love [of the Father] is antecedent to the purchase of Christ.” In other words, while the work of Christ is all-important for redemption, it does not make the Father love us but is rather the outgrowth of God’s love. (29)
The consequence of understanding this is that we need not run from the Father but should run toward him as “the only read for the soul”.
The Father is free, undeserved, and eternal love towards us, demonstrated by his sending his Son for us. “This is the great discovery of the gospel…”
The love of the Father is antecedent to the purchase of Christ.
We do not need to ask Christ to pray for the Father’s love, because he already loves us.
To kinds of love - that of doing good and that of approbation
We must receive the love of the Father by Faith

Christ as the stream of which the Father is the fountain, the only rest for the soul.

Though all our refreshment actually lie in the streams, yet by them we are led up to unto the fountain. Jesus Christ, in respect of the love of the Father, is but the beam, the stream; wherin though actually all our light, our refreshment lies, yet by him we are led to the fountain, the sun of eternal love itself. Would believers exercise themselves herein, they would find it a matter of no small spiritual improvement in their walking with God.This is that which is aimed at. Many dark and disturbing thoughts are apt to arise in this thing. Few can carry up their hearts and minds to this height by faith, as to rest their souls in the love of the Father; they live below it, in the troublesome region of hopes and fears, storms and clouds. All here is serene and quiet. But how to attain to this pitch, they know not. This is the will of God, that he may always be eryed as benign, kind, tender, loving, and unchangeable therein; and that peculiarly as the Father, as the great fountain and spring of all gracious communications and fruits of love. This is that which christ came to reveal - God as a Father (John 1:18); that name which he declares to those who are given him out of the world (John 17:6). And this is that which he effectually leads us to by himself, as he is the only way of going to God as Father (John 14:5-6); that is, as love: and by doing so, gives us the rest which he promises; for the love of the Father is the only rest of the soul. It is true, as was said, we do not have this formally in the first instant of believing. We believe in God through Christ (1 Peter 1:21); faith seeks out rest for the soul. This is presented to it by Christ, the mediator, as the only procuring cause. Here it abides not, but by Christ it has an access to the Father. (112) ^b67c6d

References

Owen, Communion with the Triune God, p. 29-31
Owen, Communion with the Triune God, p.110-112

John Owen on the Work of the Holy Spirit

Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:57:00 +0000

In the preface to Communion with the Triune God Kelly Kapic explains Owen’s terminology for different facets of the Spirit’s work in the life of the believer. In particular:

Sanctification, which for Owen (and the NT, generally) is a passive activity in which the Spirit sets us apart, moving us from the Kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of his beloved Son. In short, to be a Christian is to be sanctified by the Holy Spirit. This contrasts with the systematic theological use of sanctification as the progressive growth in holiness throughout the Christian life.
Consolation, or the work of the Spirit in consoling/comforting the believer. The Spirit offers comfort and strength to the believer, but this is not always passive. We can neglect or refuse to seek it and thus lack an experience of the joy and comfort that the Spirit brings.

The Spirit is specifically, the Spirit of Christ and this helps us to know how to test the spirits. “Does this Spirit draw me towards Christ? Does the Spirit glorify the incarnate Lord?”

He is the Spirit of Freedom - does this spirit leave me exhausted and without love?
He tends to work through and within human faculties.

From Owen’s perspective, these experiences simply didn’t make sense, for the true Spirit affirms creation - including human nature - rather than undermining it. By this spirit we are renewed in God’s image as he enlightens our minds, renews our wills, and redirects our affections towards God. When people claimed the SPirit made them act more like beasts than like humans, Owen would scratch his head with real skepticism about whether this was the true Spirit of GOd - he was fairly confident it wasn’t. (45)
He is the Spirit of prayer - does this Spirit belittle the ordinary Christian experience of prayer or encourage it?

References

Owen, Communion with the Triune God, p. 22-23, 44-45

Weir, Project Hail Mary

Tue, 28 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0000

This was, to say the least, a different read. It’s hard to imagine a book that captures your interest so well, but is in fact not really a good book at all. The basic initial plot is compelling, and the way the story begins with the main character feeling their way around after coming out of amnesia is really interesting. But it kind of deteriorates quickly.

First, the good:

Good storyline idea
The hard science was fun. While it was waaay overdone, it was also cool to see plausible science put to use for the story and explained to us ignorati as the natural thought processes of a scientist. On the other hand, the things that this junior high microbiologist is able to conjure up across all fields of science is ridiculous.
There were some humorous moments in the interchange between Rocky and Dr. Grace The bad:
Everything else
The characters were 2D flat
The plot devolved into a farce
The dialogue was poor
The story was unbelievable within its own context, even accounting for suspension of disbelief. The number of things that a single person can do in such a short amount of time is crazy and distracting.
The ending was unsatisfying

This book puts a wrench in my normal strategy of trusting that a popular book with >4.5 stars on goodreads must be worth reading. This one was worth reading since it came recommended from a family member but I think my goodreads theory is on shaky ground.

My rating: 2.5 stars

Mark 4

Tue, 21 Mar 2023 13:35:00 +0000

Mark 4:1–20 (ESV)

The Parable

1 Again he began to teach beside the sea. And a very large crowd gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat in it on the sea, and the whole crowd was beside the sea on the land. 2 And he was teaching them many things in parables, and in his teaching he said to them: 3 “Listen! Behold, a sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it. 5 Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil. 6 And when the sun rose, it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain. 8 And other seeds fell into good soil and produced grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.” 9 And he said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

In chapter 3, we see the developing divide between insiders and outsiders, and that will be further defined here.
Large crowd gathers (Mark emphasizes they are on the land, same word as soil in the parable) - the various soils of the parable represent the people in the crowd
Some OT background imagery to the some of the ideas in this parable:
- Isaiah 55:10-11 - “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.”
- Jeremiah 31:27-28 - “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and the seed of beast. And it shall come to pass that as I have watched over them to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy, and bring harm, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, declares the Lord.”
- Hosea 2:21-23 - “And in that day I will answer, declares the Lord, I will answer the heavens, and they shall answer the earth, and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil, and they shall answer Jezreel, and I will sow her for myself in the land. And I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People, ‘You are my people’; and he shall say, ‘You are my God.’ ”
It falls on different soil, with varying result:
- Path - eaten by birds
- Rocky - sprouted but scorched and withered
- Thorns - thorns choked it preventing fruit
- Good - sprouted and produced fruit of varying yields
Jesus warns: Those who have hears, hear!
- What does he mean by this?
- Strauss -
  
  The meaning could be either 1) anyone who has ears (i.e. everyone) should hear and respond to Jesus’ message; or 2) those given “ears” (i.e., special spiritual insight) by God ought to listen. The latter fits the following context well, where Jesus says the disciples have been given the secrets of the kingdom of God, but that others are blind and deaf to the message (Mark 4.11-12). Furthermore, in Matt. 13:43 the saying appears in a context of private instruction to the disciples. (227)

Before we get to the explanation here, let’s look at what Mark interjects between the parable and it’s explanation, as this hints to us that this parable is a key to all his parables.

The Reason for Parables

10 And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11 And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, 12 so that “ ‘they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.’ ”

Why the parables?

In a sense, they are not different from the rest of Jesus ministry - all of his teach and miracles need interpretation to be properly understood.
They provide a way to teach truths of the kingdom, but in an obscure fashion such that those who oppose or are disinterested can be left in the dark (a hardening judgment) and those who repent seek out Jesus for the answers can know the truth and be changed by it.
There’s also a connection between the opposition Jesus receives and his transition to using parables in the Gospel. Beginning with the pharisees and then the scribes.
OT Background - parables reserved for time of Judgment - Psa 78:2, 2 Sam. 12:1
Interestingly, Jesus will eventually tell a parable that’s easy to understand (Mark 12:1-12) and will be crucified for it.
Garland -

“like the cloud which separated the fleeing Israelites from the pursuing Egyptians. It brought “darkness to the one side and light to the other” (Exod 14:20). The same cloud which condemned the Egyptians to their hardness of heart also protected Israel and made a way for her through the sea. That which was blindness to Egypt was revelation to Israel
One commentator writes on this teaching technique:

Parables do not always make something obscure clearer by using vivid picture language. On the contrary, they may only befuddle. If one is blasé and takes no interest in what they might mean or in the one who speaks them, or if one refuses to make any decision until all the facts are in, one will remain in a fog…. How many would have the courage to deliver a deliberately obscure message, as Jesus did, and then wait in the church parlor for worthy inquirers to come for an explanation? This text suggests, however, that we may fail to understand the truth of the gospel and rob it of some of its power if we think that everything must be kept simple and clear. It may lead us to reexamine what we are trying to do and how we are to go about making committed disciples. Jesus did not strive to make things easier for the crowds to comprehend or to make them feel more comfortable. His enigmatic teaching served to separate those who were curious from those who were serious.
Isaiah 6 quote in context:

Isaiah 6:9-10 shows up at least four other times in the New Testament with this same sense (Matthew 13:14-15; Luke 8:10; John 12:39-40; Acts 28:26-27). That is why the context of Isaiah 6 is so important. God declared judgment upon Israel for their idolatry. Why the reference to ears and eyes that don’t hear or see? God was communicating that this was poetic justice. They had become as blind and deaf and mute as the idols they worshipped (Isaiah 44:18-20).
See the comparable activity in 2 Cor. 2:14-16
Also Romans 11 (a partial hardening has come upon Israel) What makes the insiders (i.e. disciples) different from the outsiders? Do they have better insight or ability for comprehension?
The difference is that they come to Jesus for understanding. God’s works in Jesus’ ministry and his work in our lives and in the world today are no always clear and easy to understand. We depend on him for understanding.

The Parable Explained

13 And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. 16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. 17 And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. 18 And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, 19 but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 20 But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.”

The sower sows some seed - Who is the sower here? What’s significant about this? - We’re never actually given a sower, but the fact that Jesus is telling the parable and given the OT background of God being the sower of Israel, those who have ears to hear will hear that Jesus is fulfilling the work of replanting Israel and has come as the end-time sower. - The ambiguous nature of the sower (I think intentionally) leaves this element of the parable open. While in Jesus is sowing the word, it’s just as much his apostles and us after them sowing as well. - What do you make of the sower’s sowing practices? - He is sowing liberally, with little regard to as to whether the seed will take root or not. He’s the opposite of sparing with regards to whether the ground is ready for the seed or not. - Faithfulness is our calling, not focus on results. “We need a deep sense of God’s call not to be overcome by discouragement when our faithful labors meet with little response.” - How does this encourage us to persevere with sharing the gospel? - The state of a person’s heart is key to how they will receive the word, but it’s impossible to know from outside or whether God will change that hear upon the occasion of the preaching of the word.

The different soils:

The seed along the path - think of the pharisees and the scribes (232)

How does Satan take away the word? What are the limits to his ability to do this?

The seed on rocky ground - think of the crowds drawn to the healings, exorcisms, and the bread (cf. John 6:66)

There is an assumption here that trials and persecution will be part of the Christian life… When such trials come, only deep spiritual roots will prevent failure. If Mark’s gospel was written to Roman Christians during the Neronian persecution, this text would have sounded a strong warning to those considering abandoning the faith. (234)

The seed on the thorns - think of the rich young man (Mark 10:17-27). And it’s not just money - “the rest” is a catchall description of anything that draws us away from God.

The good seed - How do you tell good seed from bad? By their fruit

We are cautioned to be careful how we hear, and warned of the dangers of hearing wrongly and the blessing of persevering (Luke 8:15). The warning of the Chapter 3 to the Scribes and this chapter’s call to be careful how we hear, should make us quick to listen, quick to repent.

God hands over to judicial blindness those who are willfully opposing or simply indifferent to his word. Only those who seek Jesus and desire to know the truth in him will truly understand his word. - The parables function as a dividing tool, with those who are opposed or indifferent being left in the dark but those who are with Jesus being able to understand their meaning.

Wright, Pauline Perspectives

Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Part I - Oxford and Cambridge

1 The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith (1978)

#Pauline_Theology

One of the central points in the view I propose is that Paul regarded the historical people of Abraham as God’s answer to the problem of the sin of Adam. (6)

Two aspects of Christology in particular stand out here. First, the MEssiah sums up his people in himself, so that what is true of him is true of them. SEcond, the Messiah has died and been raised. From these two sources flow salvation history and justification by faith, not as two parallel streams, nor even as two currents in the same stream, but as one stream. If the Messiah has died and been raised, so has Israel: and her death and resurrection consist precisely in this, that God’s purpose of saving Jews and gentiles alike is achieved through justification, in Christ, by faith. And behind the Christology and the soteriology stands the theology: there is one way of justification for all men (Romans 3.27ff) since God is one. (7)

On the phrases “in Christ” and “with Christ”:

If we are right, those phrases mean primarily ‘beloinging to the people of the Messiah’ or ‘members of Israel’ in a way which cannot be reduced either to talk of ‘fields of force’ or to the experience of Christian community. They refer to the visible, historical people of God. (8)

How the cross as a stumbling block points to identification of Messiah and his people, and how Israel is seen as dying and rising again in the Messiah:

The cross is offensive to Jews because a crucified Messiah implies a crucified Israel. Israel rejects the proffered Messiah precisely because she understands this: that is part at least of the force of Romans 9.33. If the Messiah dies under the law’s curse, that means that Israel stands under the same curse: that is part at least of the meaning of Galatians 3:10-14…Israel has become what Adam is, so that Adam may become what Israel is… The realization that the Messiah is the crucified Jesus destroyes and remakes all Jewish catgeories, because of the identification of the Messiah with his people. Damascus Road says to Paul: this is what God is doing with Israel, putting her to death in the flesh and bringing her alive in a resurrection body… As the risen Lord is recofnized y the mark of the nails, so the risen Idrael must be known by its suffering, temptation, repentance, and bearing of the cross… The Church is Israel, but no longer according to the flesh, just as Jesus Christ is raised from the dead never to die again, and just as the Christian is truly human but no longer (in Paul’s sense) “in the flesh.” (8-10)

On Misinterpreting Paul

The tradition of Pauling interpretation has manufactured a false Paul by manufacturing a false Judaism for him to oppose. (14)

Looking in the mirror when reading Paul:

Where, then, did the idea of a works-righteousness come from? Sanders has a ready answer, backed up by long and patient argument: ‘We have here the retrojection of the Protestant-Catholic debate into ancient history, with Judaism taking the role of Catholicism and Christianity the role of Lutheranism.’ The appears, to take but one example, in the often-repeated and massively anachronistic assertion that the Pharisees or the Rabbis held a doctrine of ‘works of supererogation.’ We might supplement this presuppositon, of the Protestant-Catholic debate, with three variations. Baur and the German idealists were very ready to cast Paul and the Jews in the roles of pure spirit and outward religion. Kummel, Bultmann and their followers have seen in them the contrast of authentic existence and the ancious struffle for self-understanding and self-justification. English evangelicals have tended to see the Jews as the establishment figures, the liberal or high-church bishops and theologians, with Paul as the evangelical underdog who wins though in the end, while (of course) keeping his nose clean from charismatic excesses within his own camp. (15)

On Paul and the Law:

Paul does not say that Christ fulfills the law. He is no more a legalist than anyone else is. The fulfilling of the law comes, as in 2.25-29, within the context of the people of God, the true ISrael, who by the Spirit make the baptismal profession fo faith (10.6-10). As we would find in Galatians and Phillippians also, Paul vindicates the law, deomnstrates how its abuse as a charter of national privilege is done away with by the rejected and crucified Messiah (hence the stone of stumbling in 9.33), and establishes the wroldwide church as the ture people of the Messiah, the Spirit-filled visible baptized community. (17)

On Paul and the Old Testament:

The Old Testament is seen by Paul as the book of the people of God, and like the people of God this book must die and be raised. Therefore (to take an obvious example), the food laws, relevant to the time when Israel was one geographical and physical nation, are not relevant now that Israel has died and been raised as the worldwide people of God. On the other hand, much of the law, as quoted in Romans 13, is equally relevant: there is the continuity of resurrection as well as the discontinuity of death. (19)

This is suggestive and brings to mind [[ Leithart-Delivered from the Elements of the World ]] discussion of the flesh vs. the spirit.

2 Justification: The Biblical Basis and Its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism (1980)

#justification, which was previously viewed from the perspective of the last judgment has been brought forward into the present in Christ:

[J]ustification is not only God’s declaration in the present that, because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the person who believes the Gospel is in the right. (23)

Atonement is not justification, but deals with sin so that Justification is possible:

In biblical terms, the way to deal with sin is to punish it: in Gethsemane, and on the cross itself, Jesus obeys his Father’s saving purposes by drinking the cup of the wrath of God, so that his people may not drink it. Justification and atonement are not the same thing: justification presupposes an objective dealing with sin. (4)

Faith is a sign of an already renewed heart, and justification therefore is a declaration of the present reality effected by regeneration:

Justification presupposed the work of the Spirit, promised in the Old Testament as the one who would write God’s law on the hearts of his new covenant people. Justification takes place on the basis of faith because true Christian faith - belief that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead - is the evidence of the work of the Spirit, and hence the evidence that the believer is already within the covenant. If a man believes this Gospel, his religious stance is clear. He can be neither Jew nor Gentile, but only Christian. This is where it is vital ti distinguish justification from regeneration. Justification is not how God makes someone a Christian: it is his righteous declaration that someone is already a Christian. Faith is not an achievement which earns salvation, but the evidence of saving grace already at work. Only the renewed heart can believe in the resurrection; only the pentitent heart can submit to Jesus as Saviour and Lord. Because of the work of the Son and the Spirit, God rightly declares that Christian believers are members are members of the covenant family. The basis of justification is the grace of God freely given to undeserving sinners. (24)

The theological relationship between Romans and Galatians

To sum up the biblical message:

This is justification: because of the work of the Son and the Spirit, GOd pronounces in the present the future verdict of ‘righteous’ over all who believe. Irrespective of more or racial background, believers are declared to belong for all eternity to the true people of Abraham, the family of the renewed covenant, the people whose sins are fogiven. And from this perspective, Romans 9-11 falls into place: God is redefining Abraham’s family as the worldwide covenant community, formed now by means of the gentile mission and the constant invitation to Jews to become in truth what they are according to the flesh. (33)

The practical application to modern believers:

The reagedy of the situation is that there must have ben countless Christians down the yeats in all churches who really did believe in Jesus Christ as their risen Lord but who failed in this life to enjoy the assurance of salvation which was theres for the taking, because they were never told that believers are declared ‘righteous’ in the present because of the death of God’s son. ‘Legal’ categories, which some want to do away with today, are not sterile or irrelevant - they are the key to Christian assurance. (37

And:

To anxious individuals, to a troubled world, to a divided church, and to muddled evangelicalism, the biblical doctrine of justification declares: God is God; trust in him; be glad and rejoice in him; and do not be afraid. God is God: therefore relax.

My summary notes:

Justification - Declaration of righteous status
Present justification on the basis of faith
Faith is the fruit (vs. cause) of regeneration
Faith is the ground of assurance of future justification
Justification = present assurance of our future justification according to works (those of Christ done for and even through us)
Baptism - sign of regeneration (in accordance with God’s promises)
Faith follows regeneration, therefore need not precede baptism (according to the paedobaptist view)
Faith must follow afterward, or else no justification

God’s promise -> Regeneration ——> Present Justification -> Future Justification I I ^ I V V I V Baptism ——–> Covenant Member-> Faith Assurance

3 Godliness and Good Learning: Cranfield’s Romans (1980)

4 A New Tubingen School? Ernst Kasemann and His Commentary on Romans

5 On Becoming the Righteousness of God: 2 Corinthians 5.21

The lesson learned from the controversy over 2 Corinthians 5:21:

The question must always be not, ‘what does the tradition say this verse means?’ but ‘what does the verse itself, in context, actually say?’ (68)

Paul’s embodying of God’s messenger making an appeal:

Astonishingly, the voice of the suffering apostle is to be regarded as the voice of God himself, the God who in Christ has established the new covenant, and who now desires to extend its reconciling work into all the world. The second half of the verse should not, I think, be taken as an address to the Corinthians specifically, but as a short pithy statement of Paul’s whole vocation: ‘On behalf of Christ, we make this appeal: “Be reconciled to God!”’ ((73)

Part II - Lichfield and Westminster

6 Gospel and Theology in Galatians (1994)

On how some passages seem deceptively easy:

[Quoting C.S. Lewis] ‘We turn to the helps only when the hard passages are manifestly hard. But there are treacherous passages which will not send us to the notes. They look easy and aren’t’ (79)

Meaning of Euangelion in 1st-Century Palestine

What was Paul converted to on the road to Damascus? What did he understand to be true?

WHat happened on the road to Damascus, I suggest, was something like this: Paul realized that the crucified Jesus was indeed risen from the dead; that in him the hope of Israel had thus been fulfilled; that he was therefore that which his supporters had claimed, namely, Israel’s Messiah; that this Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah of Israel, was now enthroned as the Lord of all, Jew and gentile alike; that these events were indeed the inauguration of the ‘age to come’, though not in the form for which he, as a zealous Pharisee, had been longing; and that, as a result of this whole complex of thought (comples for us, reconstructing it; plain sailing for the first-century Pharisee), the pagan idolatry of the wolrd had been decisively defeated, and those who adhered to it - that is, the gentiles - were to be summoned to give allegiance to this strange and subversive Jewish Messiah. Hence, ‘the gospel of Christ’ (86)

A new “spirituality” would not have garnered the opposition seen by the Christians:

OFfering people a new religious mode of being, in a private sense, is not particularly threatening. It beocmes so, and provokes violence, the minute it challeneges the life and worldview of a community; this is so just as much in the modern ‘Christian’ western world as in first-century Asia Minor. (90)

How this Pauline understanding of #gospel fits with the Gospels:

If we take Paul’s ‘gospel’ to denote the announcement that the true god has acted in fulfillment of his promises, sending the MEssiah to die and be raised, and so ushering in the new world order in which the false gods are confronted and confounded and their adherents summoned to a new a liberating allegiance, then we may realize that the description would do fairly well for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well, for all their obvious differences from one another and from Paul. (91-92)

7 Romans and the Theology of Paul (1995)

“A Jewish Theology for the Gentile world, and a welcome for Gentiles designed to make the Jewish world jealous”

How Jesus receives in history, what was expected for Israel at the end of history:

Paul’s Christian theological reflection begins, I suggest, from within exactly this matrix of thought, with the realization that what the creator/covenant god was supposed to do for Israel at the end of history, this god had done for Jesus in the middle of history. Jesus as an individual, instead of Israel as a whole, had been vindicated, raised fromt he dead, after suffering at the hands of the pages; and this had happened in the middle of ongoing ‘exilic’ history, not at its end. This by itself would have been enough, I think, to propel a Jewish thinker to the conclusion that Jesus had somehow born Israel’s destiny by himself, was somehow its representative. When we add to this the early Christian believe in Jesus’ messiahship, and Paul’s own exposition of this theme, there is every reason to suppose that Paul made exactly this connection, and indeed made it central to his whole theology. (96)

On the particular Jewish concerns in Rome:

What Paul faced as a serious possibility in Rome was the mirror image of the problem he had met in Antioch. In making Rome his new base, there was always the danger, as the rise and popularity of Marcion in the next century was later to show, that local anti-Jewish sentiment would lead gentile Christians not only to isolate Jews within the Christian fellowship but also to marginalize a mission that included Jews. Paul, therefore, wanted to insist that the gospel was ‘for the Jew first and also, equally, for the Greek.’ (97)

Romans 2-3 raises the question (also picked up in 9ff) of how the creator God can remain faithful to his covenant for dealing with evil when the people entrusted with the covenant have failed and been unfaithful. The answer is that “the covenant faithfulness of the creator of the world is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus, the Miessiah, for the benefit of all, Jew and Gentile alike, who believe (99)”.

Reflections on Justification

What has happened to Israel is not an accident:

What has happened to Israel is not an accident (its god simply lost controle of the situation, or changed his mind in mid-plan because of its recalcitrance), nor is it a sign that the covenant god has obliterated Jews from his purpose forever. ISrael’s rejection of the gospel and its ‘rejection’ by the covenant god are to be seen, as the cross is to be seen, as the strange outworking of the divine plan to deal with the evil of the world; and if that is so, Jews can and must be welcomed back into the covenant family at any time when they believe the gospel, and such a return must be celebrated as a sign of resurrection. (104)

Christ as the last Adam (by being the last Israel):

Israle’s obedience/faithfulness should have been the means of undoing the problem of Adam, of humanity as a whole (2.17-24; 3.2f); as we saw, the death of Christ… functions as the ture obedience/faithfulness of Israel through which this purpose is achieved…Christ has offered not merely Adam’s ovedience, but Israel’s, the ‘ovedience’ that was to begin where the ‘many trespasses’ of Adam left off (5.16). Christ, in other words, did not start where Adam started, but where Adam (and ISrael) finished. COming into the reign of death, he reinstated the divinely intended reign of life. (107)

Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of the glory of Israel:

The glory is regained by the Jewish route, though not by the Jewush means. Adam’s race, like Israel itself, has been in exile; Jesus has drawn that exile onto himself. In offering to the covenant god the ovedience that should have characterized Israel (3.22; 5.15-17), he has become the means of Adam’s rescue. Thus, to look ahead to the rest of chapters 5-8, JEsus is the means of Adam’s exodus (chapter 6); he is the means of Adam’s Sinai, Pentecost (8.1-11); he is the means of Adam’s entering at last upon his promised land (8.17ff). All through Paul is telling the Jewish story as the true-Adam story, in such as way as to undercut the stories of both paganism and of non-Christian Judaism. (108)

In discussing his view of Romans 7.14-25, which he argues is depicting Israel under the law, he makes the intriguing point that Paul’s rhetoric parallels the pagan moralists describing the puzzle of virtuous people unable to live virtuously, and offers the suggestion that Paul’s depiction puts Israel under the law in the same place as ordinary sinful pagan humanity. Reminds me of a thread of argument in [[ Leithart-Delivered from the Elements of the World ]]

On the rhetorical force of Romans 9-11:

As a result, the rhetorical force of the entire exposition of the failure of Israel is not to give gentile Christians a sense of smugness or self-satisfaction at their contrasting success, but to highlight and emphasize the fact that they owe the Israelites a huge debt of gratitutude…[Romans 9.1-5 and 10.1-2] are indications of the attitude Paul wishes his readers to adopt as they come to understand and appreciate the strange covenant plan… If I am right, the whole apparently negative emphasis of Romans 9 and 10 is to be read as an appeal for a sympathetic understanding on the part of the gentile church in Rome, of the plight of the Jews…Paul, as in 7.7-25, sees ‘his flesh’ in rebellion against the gospel and understands that rebellion in terms of the strange, but ultimately positive, saving plan of the covenant god, which will deal with Israel’s unwilling and ignorant sin and so bring it, too, to salvation.

8 Two Radical Jews: A Review Article of Daniel Boyarin (1996)

9 The Law in Romans 2 (1996)

In which he argues thst the gentiles in Romans 2.27 are “by nature outside of the law” but “do the things of the law” and the righteous gentiles in view are Christians.

Summary of the flow of logic for the chapter:

The chapter then works like this: (a) (2.1-11) the general statement of coming judgment upon all humans, Jew and gentile alike; (b) (2.12-16) Torah will not affect the fairness of this judgment, since those who have it will be judged by it, and those who do not, will not. However, there is a strange category of people who ‘do the things of the law,’ in a sense yet to be explained, even though by birth they do not possess it; they will find themselves surprisingly vindicated at the judgment. (c) (2.17-24) Surely Israel is the solution to this problem of universal sin? Is she not the creator’s means of bringing light into his dark world? Yes; but alas, Israel has so far brought only darkness. The nation that was to lighten the pagan world has herself succumbed to pagan darkness, and the Torah, so far from alleviating the problem, instead intensified it. (d) (2.25-29) Nevertheless, YHWH is renewing the covenant, and the Torah is finding a strange fulfilment. There is now in existence an Israel created by the Spirit, finding its validatation from the creator god himself. (150)

10 Paul, Arabia, and Elijah

Paul’s description in Galatians of going to Arabia and “returning again to Damascus” is actually a parallel with the prophet Elijah. He was zealous like Elijah, and like Elijah was put in his place by God’s challenge.

11 New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Substructure of Romans 3-8

We could summarize the narrative sequence as follows: those who were enslaved in the ‘Egypt’ of sin, an enslavement which the law only exacerbated, have been set free by the ‘Red Sea’ event of baptism, since in baptism they are joined to the Messiah, whose death and resurrection are accounted as theirs. They are now given as their guide, not indeed the law, which, although given by God, is unsable to do more than condemn them for their sin, but the Spirit, so that the Mosaic covenant is replaced, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel said it would be, with the covenant written on the hearts of God’s people by God’s own Spirit. At this point 7.4-6 and 8.1-11 look back, within the larger logic of the letter, to 2.25-29. (163)

12 Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire

The appropriate response to the gospel is both belief (God raised him from the dead) and obedience (forsake all other allegiances and follow Jesus). Or, as Paul puts it, the obedience of faith.

He also argues that the primary force of “son of God” language in Paul is Messiah of Israel language. (176)

The every knee shall bow reference in Isa 45.23 applies exclusive loyalty to YHWH on Jesus.

Judaism without Christ has essentially subjected itself to the same critique as paganism.

From Paul’s Christian point of view, those JEws who do not embrace Jesus as their Messiah are thereby embracing instrad an identity marked out by blood and soil, by ancestry and territory, in other words, by the flesh. They are, therefore, subject to the same critique as paganism. (184)

Christ is the only real Judaism for Paul:

There can be no doubt that here Paul is denying, in the strongest terms, that membership in the eschatological people of God can be demarcated by the regular boundary markers of non-Christian Judaism - he does not even say true Judaism or fulfilled Judaism (cf. Romans 2.29) - is now defined in terms of the Messiah, Jesus. This is clearly a classic piece of Second Temple Jewish self-definition, claiming the high ground of the true fulfillment of God’s purposes and denying that ground to all others. (187)

13 The Letter to the Galatians: Exegesis and Theology (2000)

On Messiahship interpreted through Galatians 2.17-21:

The Messiah represents his people, so that what is true of him becomes true of them. His death becomes their death, and they find their new life within his. Underlying this, and I believe foundational for Paul’s thinking about what we call ‘atonement’ theology, is the belief that what God does for Israel is done not for Israel only, but for the whole world. Israel’s Messiah is the world’s Lord; the crucified, saving Messiah who brings Jews out of their real exile is the crucified Lord who by the same means rescues pagans from their bondage to nongods. (200)

On the transformation of Israel in Christ:

[D]espite the extravagant claims of some, there is no biblical warrant whatsoever for the suggestion that the reestablishment of state of Israel in the 1940s constituted the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and that, as such, it should be supported by right thinking Christians. Galatians is one of the biblical books that most strongly gives the lie to this. Paul is at pains throughout to distance himself from any geographical or territorial claim; these things are done away with in Christ. ‘The present Jerusalem is in bondage with her children; but the JErusalem that is above is free, and she is the mother of us all’ (4.25-26). Nor is this a mere assertion. Paul’s whole argument is that the ‘Israel of God’ (6.16) consists of all those, Jew and gentile alike, who believe in Jesus the Messiah. (208)

Paul embodied the message of Jesus, and this is our calling as well, such that our lives and the fruit of the Spirit manifest in them are a powerful testimony in a cynical age.

14 The Shape of Justification (2001)

Justified by believing in Jesus and not by believing in Justification by Faith:

By ‘the gospel’ Paul does not mean ‘justification by faith’ itself, He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe the message, to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith itself is a second-order doctrine to believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Romans 5.1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table-fellowship without distinction with all other believers (Galatians 2.11-21). But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith (this, I think, is what Newman thought Protestants believed), but by believing in Jesus. (218)

The golden thread of Romans 8 and what it reveals about justification:

God foreknew, foreordained, called, justified, and glorified. The sequence is very interesting. The ‘call’ for Paul, is what happens when the gospel is preached: God’s word in that gospel works powerfully upon the hearts and minds, and people find that they believe it - the crucified Jesus really is Israel’s Messiah, the world’s Lord! But - and this is my central point here, an execgetical point with large theological implications - Paul does not call this even ‘justification’. ‘Justification’ is the declaration which God at once makes, that all who share this faith belong to Christ, to his sin-forgiven family, the one family of believing Jews and believing gentiles together, and are assured of final glorification. (221)

15 Coming Home to St Paul? Reading Romans a Hundred Years after Charles Gore (2002)

Paul plants the seeds of future revolutionary Christian social teaching.

Paul did not suggest to the Romans, a tiny and fragmented church in a huge pagan capital, that they should begin to campaign for better laws and more effective justice. He might as well have told them what sort of aeroplanes they should be bulding for the next stage of his mission. But just as elsewhere he laid the foundation for revolutions yet to come, so in his subversive, almost cheeky upstaging of Caesar’s claims with those of Jesus, I believe he lad the foundations for a fully integrated and theologically coherent Christian social agenda which we today ignore at our peril. Just as justification by faith and the life of the church are held together with Paul’s

[[ Reflections on Justification#The transforming power of Justification ]]

16 Paul and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans (2002)

Six points on Romans 13:

The need to spell it out implies the possibility of taking the rest subversively
Caesar is subject to the Jewish God
Ruler is to take the place of personal vengeance
Victory of God is not won by revolution

God did not intend that the church should be the means og causing anarchy, of redusing normal civic responsibilities; anarchy simply replaces the tyranny of the officially poerful with the tyranny of the unofficially powerful, the bullies and the rich. The real overthrow of pagan power comes by other means. (253)
Seeking to avoid civic strife
Living in the tensian of the present and the future

17 Communion and Koinonia: Pauline Reflections on Tolerance and Boundaries

We have allowed ourselves to say ‘I feel’ when we mean ‘I think’, collapsing serious thought into knee-jerk reactions. We have become tolerant of everything excep intolerance, about which we ourselves are extremely intolerant. If someone thinks through an issue and, irrespective of his or her feelings on the subject, reaches a considered judgment that doing X is right and doing Y is wrong, they no sooner come out and say so than someon else will accuse them of phobia. (262)

III Durham

18 New Perspectives on Paul (2003)

19 Redemption from the New Perspective? Towards a multi-layered Pauline Theology of the Cross (2004)

20 Paul as Preacher: The Gospel Then and Now (2007)

Parallels with Paul’s cultural milieu call for preaching as he did:

Since today’s western world is in fact looking more and more like the Graeco-Roman wolrld of the first and second centuries, we should shrug our shoulders and get on with doing and saying the kinds of things Paul and his contemporaries found themselves doing and saying, and take the consequences. (326)

Likewise, expect the opposition that Jesus saw:

If Jesus’ message caused many of his followers to turn back, we shouldn’t be surprised if the message about him does the same. But those who seek to embody and express the truth that he is the world’s true Lord, rather than the pagan gods and goddesses of Mammon, Mars, and Aphrodite - all of whome are of course big business right now - must expect to have to do it the same way that Paul did, by prayer, and fear and trembling, by seizing every opportunity but also by facing puzzing problems and obstacles. (327)

21 4QMMT and Paul: Justification, ‘Works’ and Eschatology (2006)

22 Reading Paul, THinking Scripture: ‘Atonement’ as a Special Study (2007)

23 ‘Christ in You, the Hope of Glory’ (Colossians 1:27): Eschatology in St. Paul (2008)

24 Romans 9-11 and the ‘New Perspective’ (2009)

25 Whence and WHither Pauline Stufies in the Life of the Church (2010)

Christians are the real people of the renewed covenant, as anticipated in Deuteronomy (412)

26 Justification: Yesterday, Today, and Forever (2010)

27 Paul and Empire (2010)

IV St. Andrews

28 Mind, Spirit, Soul and Body: All for One and One for All - Reflections on Paul’s Anthropoligy in His Complex Contexts (2011)

29 Paul in Current Anglophone Scholarship (2012)

30 Romans 2:17-3:9: A Hidden Clue to the Meaning of Romans? (2012)

On the question of God’s faithfulness in Romans 3:3:

God’s faithfulness is not simply his faithfulness to Israel, as many assume (or, in more general terms, his reliability in keeping promises once made ). It is his faithfulness to the promise to bless the world through Israel - a harder concept to grasp, it seems, but absolutely central to the argument of this passage and, in a measure, the whole letter. If God decides to do things differently now, to bless the world in a way which bypasses Israel, then he stands convicted of unfaithfulness: unfaithfulness, we stress again, not in relation to his promises to Israel, but to his promises through Idrael for the world; promises to bless the world by this means rather than some other. (492)

Other passages can be read this way or that, but 3.2 ought to stand like a granite boulder in the way of the rushing stream of normal Western Christian thought (‘all sinned, God sent Jesus, problem solved’). For Paul, all sinned, God called Israel … problem complexified. The solution unveiled in 3.21—4.25 is the solution to that complex problem, not simply to the one normally imagined. — location: 12349 ^ref-31728

A better reading of Romans 2-3:

God’s purpose for Israel always was that they should be ‘a light to the nations’, with the nations coming to share their status as God’s people. That was what God promised to ‘the fathers’; and that, Paul has argued throughout the letter, is what is accomplished in the messianic events concerning Jesus. ‘The inclusion of gentiles is precisely one of the central patriarchal promises Paul highlights, not least in chapter 4.’62 Once we allow 15.7–9 to be seen as a deliberate summing up of the theology of the letter, the link with 3.1–9, and particularly with the Israel-vocation now fulfilled in the Messiah, offers striking confirmation of the proposal advanced earlier, namely that 3.1–9 and 2.17–24, read in the way I have suggested, do indeed provide a normally hidden clue to the meaning of Romans as a whole. Israel was called to be God’s means of rescuing and blessing the world, but Israel itself needed rescuing for this to happen, and Israel’s representative Messiah has come to be the ‘servant’ for Israel in order that Israel, in and through him, might be the means of bringing God’s mercy to the wider world. — location: 12662 ^ref-10471

31 Messiahship in Galatians? (2012)

#galatians #messiah On the seed vs. seeds in Galatians 3:

Paul is well aware of, and intends, the collective meaning of sperma, and lines it up precisely with the incorporative meaning of Christos. But if that collective meaning is ‘family’, it can also of course have its own plural, ‘families’. This offers a straightforward reading of 3.16: the promises did not say ‘your families’, as though referring to two or more families, but to one, ‘to your family’ - hos estin Christon, which is Christos. THe end of the chapter should leave us in no doubt that this does not mean ‘which is the single person Jesus,’ but rather ‘which is the single Christos in whom the poeple are now incorporated.’ (530)

32 Israel’s Scriptures in Paul’s Narrative Theology (2012)

#justification That Genesis 15 speaks of God justifying the Gentiles (expounding Romans 4):

God says to Abraham, don’t be afraid; your reward (misthos) will be very great. What is this reward? THe context makes it clear: the ‘reward’ is the massive, uncountable, worldwide family. The promise which Abraham believed, as Paul indicates in 4.18, was not ‘I will justify you even though you are ungodly’, but ‘I will give you a great family.’ The ungodly state is presupposed with Babel; the promise speaks of the family in which Babel is reversed. Abraham thus believes ‘in the God who justifies the ungodly’, not in the sense that he is believing in his own ‘justification without works,’ but in the sense that he is believing that God will justify the gentiles. Get the story right, and the scriptural quotations will make sense. (550)

33 Paul and the Patriarch: The Role(s) of Abraham in Galatians and Romans (2013)

#galatians Paul’s retelling of the Abraham story in Galatians 3:

(a) 3.6: Abraham believed God; very well (3.7), those of faith are Abraham’s children. (this obviously makes a ‘circle’ with 3.29) (b) 3.8: scripture promised that GOd would bless all nations in Abraham; very well (3.9), those of faith (we are left to understand this this includes people of every nation) are blessed with faithful Abraham. (c) The complex argument of 3.10-14 intrudes on this happy scene, as Torah does in the narrative as a whole. But the conclusion, in verse 14, makes it clear: Paul is affirming the Abrahamic promises, and explaining that they continue, and are being fulfulled, in the creation of a multi-ethnic family characterized by pistis. (d) THis continues with the promises and the kleronomia in 3.16-22, as we have just seen, and again the point is unfailingly positive. Paul is affirming the entire Abrahamic package as he sees it. (e) The final dense paragraph (3.23-29) might look as though it had left Abraham behind, but when it gets to the end we discover what has been true all along: if you belong to the Messiah, you are Abraham’s sperma (the single ‘seed’, not a plurality of families divided by the regulations of Torah), and, in accordance with the promise, you are kleronomoi. (577)

The promise to Abraham was widened to the whole world through the Messianic promise of Psalm 2.

Bibliography on Mark

Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:35:00 +0000

Resources referenced in preparation for Mark studies:

Commentaries

France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002. ^🔗
Meyer, J. (2022). Mark For You. The Good Book Company. ^🔗
Strauss, Mark L. Mark : Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Zondervan, 2014. ^🔗
Garland, David E. Mark. Zondervan, 1996. ^🔗
Horne, Mark. The Victory according to Mark. Canon Press & Book Service, 2002. ^🔗
Gaebelein, Frank E., et al. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke. Zondervan Publishing House, 1984. ^🔗🔗
Johnson, Bob. Markan Sandwiches: A Discipleship Resource in the Genesis Project Series. Kindle Edition, 2022. ^🔗
Le, A. T. (2017). Mark Through Old Testament Eyes. Kregel Academic. ^🔗
Donahue, John R., and Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. Edited by Daniel J. Harrington, vol. 2, The Liturgical Press, 2002. ^🔗

Monographs

Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1996. ^🔗
Kimball, William R. What the Bible Says about the Great Tribulation. 1983. ^🔗
Piper, John. Come, Lord Jesus. Crossway, 2023. ^🔗
Sproul, R. C. The Last Days according to Jesus : When Did Jesus Say He Would Return? Baker Books, 2015. ^🔗
Blackwell, Ben C., et al., editors. Reading Mark in Context: Jesus and Second Temple Judaism. Zondervan, 2018. ^🔗
Bolt, Peter G. The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark’s Gospel. Edited by D. A. Carson, vol. 18, Apollos; InterVarsity Press, 2004. ^🔗
Flavius Josephus, et al. The New Complete Works of Josephus. Kregel Publications, 1999. ^🔗

Mark 3

Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:35:00 +0000

Mark 3:1–35 (ESV)

Intro

1 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand. 2 And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come here.” 4 And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. 5 And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

7 Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great crowd followed, from Galilee and Judea 8 and Jerusalem and Idumea and from beyond the Jordan and from around Tyre and Sidon. When the great crowd heard all that he was doing, they came to him. 9 And he told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd, lest they crush him, 10 for he had healed many, so that all who had diseases pressed around him to touch him. 11 And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.” 12 And he strictly ordered them not to make him known.

Briefly summarize previous section up until Mark 3:7 (depends on where we left off)

2:1 - 3:6 represent Jesus initial demonstrations of authority, and his conflict with the Pharisees over key issues of purity and uncleanness:
- He acts in place of the Temple (and by extension God himself) in being the place where forgiveness of sins is found.
- He eats with the unclean (tax collectors and sinners)
- He allows his disciples to forgo fasting while he’s present with them
- He asserts his own authority as to what constitutes keeping the Sabbath
- The section ends on an ominous note, with the Pharisees and Herodians colluding to destroy Jesus
3:7 - 3:12 highlights Jesus’ growing popularity with the crowds (in contrast to the opposition from the religious leaders), and with its parallel to chapter 1:14 marks out the beginning of a new section
- The people are described as coming from a very wide area, covering all of the old boundaries of Israel, North and South (including some Gentile areas to the North)
- We see two ways of acknowledging Jesus’ greatness that are not the same as being his follower:
  - The crowds see the miracles and are enthusiastic about him (yet later they will just as easily turn against him)
  - The demons know who he is and confess it, but they do so and tremble in fear

In v.13-35, the structure of the narrative intertwines Jesus’ conflict with his family with the conflict with the scribes. It also creates a contrastive parallel between the calling of the twelve and the scribes. - Jesus’ disciples come up the mountain to him, receive his authority to cast our demons - The scribes come down the mountain from Jerusalem to discredit his authority to cast out demons

We have a picture of 3 classes:

Those close to Jesus who oppose his mission
Those “outside” who oppose his mission
Those who are “inside”, a true family of God

Appointing the Twelve

13 And he went up on the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach 15 and have authority to cast out demons. 16 He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); 17 James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); 18 Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot, 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

The scene with the disciples sets up a group of “insiders” in contrast to the pressing crowds, and especially to the following account of the scribes and Jesus’ family.

The passage emphasized Jesus’ selection of them - “those whom he desired” - What’s significant about this?
- Jesus always chooses us first - “my sheep hear my voice” (cf. John 15:16 - you did not choose me, but I chose you)
What is the significance of his appointing the twelve?
- Jesus is establishing a renewed/restored Israel, and twelve is intentional to parallel the twelve tribes
- Interesting to note that the 12 are chosen in addition to Jesus himself, which hints at his holding the place of YHWH
What can we learn about discipleship from Jesus’ approach here?
- Their calling provides us with a case study in true discipleship - they are to be with him and do the things that he does.
  - Be with him - How is being with Jesus still critical today? How do we do it? What hinders us?
  - Be sent out to preach
  - Have authority to cast out demons
- He models, and then sends them out themselves (in Ch. 6). The disciples become extensions of Jesus’ ministry. This is very much a hands-on strategy.
The twelve are listed, some of whom were already specifically called to follower in earlier passages.
- Simon (named Peter) (as always listed first) - called in 1:16, leaving his nets
- James, son of Zebedee (named one of Sons of Thunder) - called in 1:19, leaving family business
- John, brother of James (named one of Sons of Thunder) - called in 1:19, leaving family business
- Andrew - called in 1:16, leaving his nets
- Philip
- Bartholomew
- Matthew - called in 1:13, leaving his tax booth
- Thomas
- James, son of Alphaeus
- Thaddaeus
- Simon the Zealot
- Judas Iscariot (who betrayed him)

Two Kinds of Opposition

20 Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. 21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” 23 And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house. 28 “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” 31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” 33 And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

In this section, we see two groups of people who should really be Jesus’ biggest supports:

His own family
The religious leaders from Jerusalem Instead they are shown as opposing him, and Mark recounts this in a way that connects them together.
Explain the Markan sandwich
v.21 - Jesus’ family here what’s going on and they set out from Nazareth to “seize him”
- The same word used in Chapter 12 to describe the Jerusalem leaders seeking to arrest him
- Why would Jesus’ family seek to oppose him?
v.22-30 - The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit
- The scribes throw two accusations:
  - Jesus is possessed by Beelzebul
  - He casts out demons by the prince of demons
- Jesus responds by challenging their logic:
  - How would him being possessed make sense? It would be self-defeating
  - Even if their premises were true, it means that Satan’s kingdom is coming to an end
- Jesus is binding the strong man so that he can plunder his house
  - This passage echoes Isa. 49:24-26, where YHWH is presented as rescuing Israel from captivity to “the strong man”.
  - Who is the strong man here?
  - What is the property being plundered?
- vv. 28-30 often cause a lot of problems for introspective Christians
  - How can there be an unforgivable sin?
  - How do I know if I’ve committed this sin?
- Before dealing with the sin, it’s important not to gloss over the gloriously broad statement that proceeds it - “All sins will be forgiven, and whatever blasphemies they utter” - nothing else is outside the reach of his forgiveness.
- The sin Jesus speaks of here is specifically because they said “he has an unclean spirit.” Attributing the clear work of the Holy Spirit to the evil one leaves them nowhere to go - they must oppose Jesus and have sealed themselves off from the possibility of repentance.
  - Have the scribes already committed this sin? Or are they just in danger of it?
  - Does this mean that once someone has made such an attribution they are forever seared from recognizing their error? Or only if they persist in it do they cut themselves off from forgiveness?
  - It is certainly a frightful passage, and should not be taken lightly, but a sensitive Christian conscience should not be alarmed about accidentally falling into this sin. As many wise pastors have counseled, those who fear they may have committed this terrible sin exhibit a sure sign that they have indeed not done so.
- Considering how the scribes treat Jesus, how can we expect to be treated?
v. 31-35 - Jesus True Family
- While not the primary intent of this passage, there are some aspects of this that are relevant to the Roman Catholic teaching on Mary:
  - The existence of Jesus’s brothers would challenge the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary
  - The fact that Jesus here holds Mary to the same standard as everyone else gives lie to the idea that Mary has a special exalted status in God’s economy
- Jesus’ relatives come to see him (presumably to restrain him v21), but he makes the bold statement that his true family are those who do the will of the God. His family’s access to him must follow the same path of discipleship as everyone else.

Some key takeaways from Jesus’ teaching on the family here:

Even Jesus own people (that is, those who one would expect to be closest to him) misunderstand him and his mission.

His family
The religious leaders
Israel as a whole How is it possible today for those who are close to Jesus to misunderstand and even oppose his mission?

How do we mistake closeness to Jesus with being part of his family? How does loyalty to Jesus differ from proximity? “We cannot confuse baptism, confirmation, a Christian background, or church attendance with following Jesus. No one can lay a claim upon Jesus and gain any kind of acceptance into his family other than Jesus himself.”

Spiritual relationships take ultimate priority over physical relationships.

The Jews had to choose between maintaining their strict separation as the family of Israel, or fellowship with Christ alongside Gentiles
Many must choose between following Jesus’ or maintaining peace with their families
Likewise, our loyalties in the flesh, whether it be to a particular nation, tribe, political affiliation, etc, must take a backseat to our common family in Christ

The church is intended to be a genuine family

What will this look like?

Reflections on Justification

Wed, 22 Feb 2023 20:21:00 +0000

Past Present and Future Justification

N.T. Wright explains the 3 tenses of justification in the New Testament:

In Romans 1-4, Paul has set out the three tenses of justification. Justification is the future verdict in 2.1-16: there will come a day when the righteous creator will put the world to rights, and on that day some will be declared to be in the right, even though at the moment, within the poetic sequence of Romans, it is not exactly clear who will come into this category (2.7, 10, 14-16). Justification is also the past verdict pronounced over Jesus in his resurrection: as the reurrection declared that Jesus was indeed god’s son (1.4), so it declares in principle that he is the true Israel, the vindicated people of the creator. The famous doctrine of ‘justification by faith,’ as articulated in 3.27-30 and undergirded in 4.1-25, consists in the present justification (c.f. 3.26, en to nun kairo [‘in the present time’]) in which the past verdict over Jesus is brought forward and applied to those who have faith in the god who raised Jesus, and in which the future verdict is brough backwards with the same application and result (c.f. 8.1: there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus). (103)

The transforming power of Justification

The gospel (and justification in particular) never leaves us as we are, but transforms us:

Justification means, at one level, that God accepts us as we are. But God’s acceptance is always transforming acceptance of holy love, demanding from us not a slack acquiescence in whatever state we happen to be in, but serious and Spirit-helped moral effort in becomeing what God intends for us. Without this, we slip back into the worst of both worlds, holding the form of a bare and caricatured Protestant justification-theology but without any of the lively devotion that has traditionally accompanied it. An integrated Pauline ethic never says, ‘Because God has accepted me, I can stay as I am.’ It always says that the mercy of God invites me to present my body as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable. ‘It never askes, what am I allowed to do? Can I get away with this?’ It always asks, ‘How can I live according to the Spirit, not according to the flesh? How can I be transformed by the renewing of my mind, rather than being conformed to the present age?’ (234)

References

Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 103
Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 234

Meaning of Euangelion in 1st-Century Palestine

Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:04:00 +0000

Discussing the meaning of gospel in the NT cultural context, Wright demonstrates two predominent senses:

The Jewish OT background, with Israel still perceived as being in exile:

Here again it is clear that, within the second-Temple period, some JEws at least were still looking earnestly for a fulfillment of the Isaianic promises. The ‘good news’ or ‘glad tidings’ would be the message that the long-awaited release from captivity was at hand (82)
The Greek background, or ‘news of victory’, particularly an emperor’s. Quoting the (now) oft-cited incrscription of Augustus’s rule:

The providence which has ordered the whole of our life, showing concern and zeal, ahs ordained the most perfect conummation for human life by giving it to Augustus, by filling him with virtue for doing the work of a benefactor among men, and by sending in him, as it were, a savior for us and those who come after us, to make war to cease, to create order everywhere…; the birthday of the gos was the beginning for the world of the glad tidings that have come to men through him… (82)

Wright argues we can get lost in the discussion of the source of this idea and not see the destination:

The Isaianic message always was about the enthronement of YHWH and the dethronement of pagan gods; about the victory of Israel and the fall of Babylon; about the arrival of the Servant King and the consequent coming of peace and justice. THe scriptural message therefore pushes itself of its own accord into the world where pagan gods and rulers stake their claims and celebrate their enthronements.

In other words, it’s both and they are competing visions for the future of humanity.

References

Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 82-83

The theological relationship between Romans and Galatians

Sun, 12 Feb 2023 11:50:00 +0000

On the target audience and distinct messages of Galatians and Romans, Wright observes:

Both letters are concerned with the question as to who are the true children of Abraham, though their different approaches reflect the needs of the particular congregations being addressed. Galations is written to convince converted pagans that they have nothing to gain by becoming Jews physically which they do not already possess through belonging to Jesus Christ. On the contrary, to go on from Christianity into Judaism is to step down into a realm under sentence of death because of the law and the cross. Romans, however, is written to convince Christians from a mixed background that they do indeed inherity all the blessings of Israel, but issues at the same time the warning (which the Galatians scarcely needed) not to lapse into anti-Semitism. From the same theological position Paul argues two different, though fully compatible, cases. (28)

References

Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 28

Notes on Kaiser's Messiah in the Old Testament

Mon, 06 Feb 2023 04:35:00 +0000

Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament

Personal Thoughts

This is an interesting and often insightful look at many of the clear/direct Messianic prophecies found in the OT. Kaiser’s respect for the original context is welcome. However, I don’t think the restrictions he has applied to his method always result in convincing readings of the text and don’t necessarily always jive with how the NT is willing to understand a text. Additionally, so much of the OT anticipation of the Messiah is authorially intended typology that is completely excluded from this study. In the end, I think it ends up coming short the Emmaus road vision of opening up the life and work of Christ “Beginning with Moses”. Not that Kaiser fails with what he set out to do, but that he falls short of providing a full orbed view of the Messiah in the OT.

I. Introduction: The Study of Messianism

A. Definitions

B. Starting Points

#hermeneutics #prophecy #messiah

Is the original meaning of the OT context durable enough to suggest anything like what “most people” think the OT says, let alone what the NT claims for this doctrine of the Messiah? (18)

That’s the big question, which Kaiser would answer with a definite, “Yes,” though not wishing to depend on the traditional methods, which are often critiqued as “proof-texting”. He catalogues those as:

Dual meaning (predicted local and future meaning)
Single meaning (it didn’t predict it)
New Testament meaning (The NT is inspired and can make its own meaning)
Developmental meaning (OT meaning expands in like of NT fulfillment)
Goal meaning (Christ is the final goal of prophecy)
Relecture meaning (reading the old prophecies in a new light gives them new meaning)
Theological meaning (the old is ultimately fulfilled and supplanted by the new)

C. A Proposal

Kaiser stands firm that original, grammatical-historical meaning is the only one that matters (although see [[ Leithart, Deep Exegesis ]] for a challenge to this). He argues for 4 principles that will bring this home:

Epigenetical meaning - the original word plants a seed that germinates over time to its development. In other words, the promise is made and historical events give more and more shape to it.
Single meaning - the words mean what they mean
Corporate solidarity - One who represents the group and the group are included in the represented one
Unity of the plan of God

D. The Promise-Plan of God

We should view the promises, not as mere predictions but as plans that include the means of carrying them out.

Instead, it is amazing how the depictions concerning the coming Messiah and his work comprised one continuous plan of God. Each aspect was linked into an ongoing stream of anouncements beginning in the prepatriarchal period, supplemented by the patriarchal, Mosaic, premonarchial, monarchial, and prophetic periods, down to the postexilic times of Israel’s last leaders and prophets. The promise was a single one; yet it was cumulative in its net results. Indeed, its constituent parts were not a collection of assorted promises about a Messiah who was to come: instead they formed one continuous patter and purpose placed in the stream of history. (29)

Kaiser, while not espousing dispensationalism, wants to maintain a distinction between promises “for Israel” and promises “for the Church.”

E. Problems in Messianic Interpretation

He opposes the idea of “double meaning”, which leads to chaos. The problem is that his description seems to preclude even authorially intended messianic portraits. See, for example, the work of Sailhamer (e.g. [[ Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch ]]), who argues that the OT books were originally composed with Messianic intent, so the types and shadows can be seen as intended by the human author (or compiler). He does allow for divine typology but excludes that from this study.

II. The Messiah In the Pentateuch

A. The Edenic Prediction

Speaking of Gen. 4:1, he discussed Luther’s rendering of “I have begotten a man, even the LORD”

Such as translation is possible, for there is no word for “help” as most modern versions generally render it “with the help of the Lord” (italicized words are not in the Hebrew text). If this suggestion is correct, then Eve understood that the promised male descendent of human descent would be, in some way, divine, “the LORD”. If so, then Eve’s instincts about the coming Messiah were correct, but her timing was way off! (42)

B. The Noahic Prediction

Questionable understanding that the Noahic prophecy is that God will dwell in the tents of

C. The Abrahamic Prediction

D. The Judaic Prediction

E. The Balaamic Prediction

Jeremiah repeated Balaam’s prophecy and still placed it in the future (Jer 48-49). (55)

F. The Mosaic Prediction

In a footnote while discussing Deuteronomy 18, he cites David Baron on the singular nature of this intended “prophet like Moses” -

“But against this interpretation we have, first, the fact that nabi (prophet) is singular - God says not prophets, but ‘a prophet’ - secondly, that this word nabi is never taken collectively; thirdly, that sacred history points out no such succession of one prophet; and fourthly, this and the preceding intepretations are all contrary to to plain passages of Scripture: Numbers xii. 6-8… and Deuteronomy xxxiv. 10-12, a passage inserted probably by Ezra, asserts that ‘there arose no prophet like unto Moses.’” (58)

Appendix: The Messiah in Job

III. The Messiah Before and During the Davidic Monarchy

A. Hannah and the King: God’s Anointed One

Defending Hannah’s song as speaking of the Messiah, he makes the good point:

It is interesting to note that later on, Peter comes to the same conclusion in Acts 3:24: “All the prophets from Samuel on … fortold these days” (i.e.the days of the Messiah). Where does Samuel make reference to any messianic prediction except in Hannah’s prophecy, which he records or leaves behind from his ministry? (71)

He nicely sums up what he calls “the four stages of royal messianism” -

First, Abraham had been promised that “kings will come from you” (Ge 17:6, 16) and God reaffirmed the same promise to Jacob: “Kings will come from your body” (35:11). In the second stage, the symbols of rule and authority (the “scepter” and “ruler’s staff” were given to Judah (49:10); accordingly, this royalty was promised the “obedience of the nations”. The third stage speaks of this coming king crushing his enemies, as Balaam predicted of the one he called the “star…out of Jacob” and the “scepter…out of Israel” (Nu 24:17). Now in 1 Samuel 2:10, the fourth stage is reached: the Messiah as th exalted King will be the judge of all th earth.(72)

B. Eli and the Faithful Priest: God’s Anointed One

He takes the faithful priest as only referring to the Messiah and not any sort of typical or antitypical fulfillment. He also insightfully argues in v30 that it is the “house” that is “walking before” the Messiah, and this refers to the NT royal priesthood.

C. Nathan and the Established Dynasty and Kingdom of David

1 Sam. 7 - “for all humanity” means David knows this promise is the blessing of the Messiah to come

D. David’s Dynasty and the Psalms

Kaiser (strangely IMO) argues that Psalm 89 must be from David’s time even though it overwhelming fits an exilic context.

Appendix: The Messiah in the Wisdom Literature

Kaiser allows for essentially no Messiah in the Wisdom literature

IV. The Messiah in the Psalms (Part 1)

A. The Conquering King and Enthroned Messiah (Psalms 110 and 2)

B. The Rejection of the Messiah (Psalm 118)

Psalm 118 is about David and predicts the Messiah typological

C. The Betrayal of Messiah (Psalm 69 and 109)

Dealing with the fact that it speaks of David’s son sinning, as well as previous historical fulfillments of the betrayer.

There is a line of evil (recall the seed of the serpent in Ge 3:15 that finds its epitome and climactic fulfillment in the representative of the whole group, just as there is a line of righteousness that eventuates in the Messiah. (107)

V. The Messiah in the Psalms (Part 2)

D. The Death and Resurrection of the Messiah (Psalm 22 and 16)

Psalm 22 is seen as primarily prophetic of the Messiah’s suffering. Citing James E. Smith approvingly:

Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, David in Psalm 22 saw his descendant resembling, but far surpassing, himself in suffering. Furthermore, the deliverance of this descendant would have meaning for all mandkind. (113)

Psalm 16 is a direct prophecy, David seeing through his own life into the future conquering of death of the Messiah (following Acts).

E. The Written Plan and Marriage of Messiah (Psalm 40 and 45)

F. the Triumph of the Messiah (Psalms 68 and 72)

VI. The Messiah in the Ninth- and Eighth-Century Prophets

A. The Ninth Century: The Messiah as a Teacher (Joel 2:23)

B. The Eighth Century: The Messiah As the Second David (Hosea 3:4-5)

C. The Eighth Century: The Messiah As the Raised House of David (Amos 9:11-15)

D. The Eighth Century: The Messiah As the Coming Ruler (Micah 5:1-4)

VII. The Messiah in the Eighth-Century Prophets (Isaiah)

A. The Messiah as King

Discussing Isaiah 7:14, Kaiser notes:

Given the frequency with which OT and NT prophecy have both a now and a not-yet aspect to their predictions, Ahaz is granted evidence of this sign in his own daya, even though the full impact of all that God has in mind will not be realized until the Messiah himself is born in a unique manner in fulfilment of this passage. (160)

I really have a hard time seeing how this is not an example of “double fulfillment” that he criticized in Chapter 1.

B. The Messiah as Servant

C. The Messiah as Anointed Conqueror

VIII. The Messiah in the Seventh- and Sixth-Century Prophets

A. The Messiah in Jeremiah

B. The Messiah in Ezekiel

C. The Messiah in Daniel

IX. The Messiah in the Post-Exilic Prophets

A. The Messiah in Haggai

B. The Messiah in Zechariah

C. The Messiah in Malachi

X. Conclusion

A. Exegesis, Biblical Theology, and Jesus

B. Continuities and Discontinuities in the Testaments

C. Prediction and Fulfilled Prophecy

Appendix 1: Chart of New Testament Fullfillments of Old Testament Messianic Prophecies

Appendix 2: Chart of the Progress of the Sixty-Five Direct Predictions of the Messiah in the Promise Doctine

Notes on Kelly's Systematic Theology, Volume I

Sun, 05 Feb 2023 15:42:00 +0000

Personal Thoughts

This is a great systematic theology due to it’s humility, broad exposure to multiple Christian traditions, and critical interaction with modern thought. Seems less formally/comprehensively structured than some other systematics, though I’m not sure whether that’s a value or drawback.

Chapter 1 - Knowledge of God: God reveals Himself

God makes himself known and those who respond to this revelation form a community of belief. There is no approach to God except on His terms and those who would know him must leave unbelieving systems behind.

Hilary on the foolishness of unbelief
Prayer as the necessary context for theology

Appendix 1 - Some Traditional Theistic Proof

Proofs are not without value, but not for convincing unbelievers as much as witness against them and strengthening the faith of those who do believe.

Anselm Ontological Proof
Hume Denial of cause and effect

Chapter 2 - Knowledge of the Triune God through Creation and Conscience

Origins of Human Religion
Know Jesus, Know God. No Jesus, No God
Calvin on Kingdom of God
The witness of an intelligible universe
Those who never heard the gospel
The purpose of all creation to lead us to communion with the Creator

Appendix 1 - Other religions as viewed by the Old Testament

Does God reveal himself by means of other world religions? The answer is an unequivocal “No”. The Fathers tend to split between “Bridge Builders” (Highlighting how Christianity fulfills paganism’s longing, while keeping the good of the philosophical systems) and “Bridge Burners” (Recognizing that false religions form an antithesis with the true knowledge of God). At the end of the day, abandoning falsehood is a good thing and those who mourn the loss of paganism within a culture are not consisten with Scripture.

Materialist Naturalism is just another religion

Appendix 2 - Theologoumenon

Are the Pagans, who Lived Before the Gospel of Christ Came to their Culture, Condemned to Destruction, Since their Religions were Not True Bearers of the Salvation of God in Christ

Those who never heard the gospel

Chapter 3 - Western Rejection of God’s Testimony to Himself in Creation and Conscience (The Continuing Heritage of the Enlightenment)

What lies behind the Western rejection (apostasy) of the revelation of the triune God over the past 3 centuries?

Rationalism and Revolution

Appendix 1 - Testimony of Dostoevsky

Chapter 4 - The God Who Is: the Holy Trinity as One Lord

The Triune God is basic to all of reality. No further proof is needed, but is itself the proof for all other reality.

Why God exists as Three Persons Rather than One Person
God Is His Own Proof

Appendix 1 - The Distinction in Eastern Orthodox Theology Between God’s Essence and His Energies

Chapter 5 - What Kind of Lord He Is: His Transcendence, Beauty and Majesty mean that His Sovereign Control is ‘Good News’

God’s transcendent being and absolute priority as creator of all, his majestic authority over all he has created, and his universal personal control of all reality. This is beautiful and majestic, and is the source of strenth for our earthly journey.

God is not distant
Trinity in the OT
Majesty of God

Appendix 1 - Contemporary Challenges to God’s Lordship

The Darwinian Challenge to God’s Lordship, especially the use of equivocal predication to avoid creation
Openness of God theology
The “non-interventionist” Lord of Marcus Borg

Appendix 2 - Attempts to Know the Lord outside the Community of Faith: 1) How the Jesus Seminar and 2) Ancient and Modern Gnosticism both Remove God’s Lordship

Gnosticism ancient and modern, the evil one’s repeated tricks brought out and each time getting a hearing.

Appendix 3 - Feminist Theology and the Fatherhood of God

The Fatherhood of God

Chapter 6 - The Triune God Makes Himself Known in the Covenant of Grace

Removal from Eden as an act of Grace
NPP Misappropriating 2nd Temple Judaism in NT
God has tied knowledge of himself to a chosen community of faith

Chapter 7 - The One Lord Exists as Three Persons

Trinity in the OT

Chapter 8 - The Christian Church Thinks Through How God is One Being and Three Persons

Why God exists as Three Persons Rather than One Person

Appendix 1 - The differing approaches of the Cappadocians and Augustine to the Trinity

Chapter 9 - The Full Co-equality of the Trinitarian Persons: No Subordinationism

In which he surveys the major church fathers and finds that they were predominantly opposed to any idea of subordination of being in the Trinity. This is speaking specifically of the Ontological Trinity as opposed to the Economical Trinity, in which case there is some order and temporary subordination among the persons of the Godhead.
The Attitude of Heresy to Mystery
The problem of the one and many

Appendix 1 - On the Filioque

What was meant vs. what was understood

Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:25:00 +0000

Wright asks two questions, which he poses as restating the same thing, which are actually very different things:

What did Jesus mean when he said the kingdom of God was at hand?
What did the average Galilean villager hear when a young prophet strode into town and announced that Israwl’s God was now at last becoming king? This is a common flaw I see in a lot of “new perspective” type writings, where there is a conflation of “what contemporaries would have understood’ vs. “what the message was” since misunderstanding is such a fundamental element of the initial gospel revelation.

References

Wright, The Challenge of Jesus, p. 35

Wright, The Challenge of Jesus

Sun, 05 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0000

1. The Challenge of Studying Jesus

Why wrestle with the historical Jesus?

We are made for God
We are loyal to Scripture
We have a Christian imperative to seek truth
We have a commitment to Christian mission

The questions he seeks to answer:

Where does Jesus belong within the Jewish world of his day?

What, in particular, was his preaching of the kingdom all about? What was he aiming to do?

Why did Jesus die? In particular, what was his oen intention in going to Jerusalem that last fateful time?

Why did the early church begin, and why did it take the shape it did? Specifically, of course, what happened at Easter?

How does all this relate to the Christian task and vision today? (33)

2. The Challenge of the Kingdom

What was mean vs. what was understood

Two foundational points for Wright’s project (p. 35)

Election - “Jesus believed that the creator God had purposed from the beginning to address and deal with the problems within his creation through Israel.”
Eschatology - “Jesus believed, as did many though not all of his contemporaries, that this vocation would be accomplished through Israel’s history reaching a great moment of climax, in which Israel herself would be saved from her enemies and through which the creator God, the covenant God, would at last bring his love and justice, his mercy and truth, to bear upon the whole world, bringing renewal and healing to all creation.”

Summary conclusion -

His aim was to be the means of God’s reconstitution of Israel. He would challenge and deal with the evil that had infected Israel herself. He would be the means of Israel’s God returing to Zion. He was, in short, announcing the kingdom of God - not the simple revolutionary message of hard-liners but the doubly revolutionary message of a kingdome that would overturn all other agendas, including the revolutionary one. (53)

3. The Challenge of the Symbols

The key symbols of Judaism:

Sabbath - Jesus acted with sovereign freedom toward the sabbath and defended it as a day for healing
Food - Jesus taught (cryptically in Public) that the end of the food laws (which helped mark out Jew from Gentile) was near
Nation and land - Jesus downplayed family identity, called upon people to abandon possessions, and challenged them to hold loosely prized national identity. He presented himself as the reconstitution of Israel, a new family of God.
Temple - Jesus proclaimed judgement on a corrupt Temple, and presented himself as the fulfillment of what the Temple is meant to be Summary conclusion -
Jesus was regularly accused of leaning the people astray
Jesus viewed the kingdom as both present and future
Jesus was a prophet warning of judgement and restoration, and declared through two key actions how it would happen - his action in the Temple (Messiahship) and the Last Supper (crucifixion)

4. The Crucified Messiah

When discussing the question of why early Christians persisted in calling Jesus the Messiah, he makes this remark:

The answer cannot simply be: Because of the resurrection. Within the world of second-Temple Judaism, not even resurrection would have generated the belief that the newly alive person was the Messiah unless people had already suspected that he was that prior to his death. (76-77)

This seems patently obvious in one sense, although the clear NT teaching is that the resurrection was the confirmatory declaration that this Jesus was indeed Messiah (c.f. Acts 2:36, Romans 1:1-4). Wright’s main point, of course, is that there had to have been some claim made by Jesus during his life that led people to conclude he was the Messiah prior to resurrection. And to be fair, he does conclude later that “without the resrrection all of this is just so much whistling in the dark. It is Easter that validates Jesus’ interpretation of his own death.” (93)

Summay conclusion -

His claims only matter if he rose from the dead
The cross offers itself as the great turning point of history, the decisive act against evil
The cross is Jesus’ final great act of love
The cross brings us close to the heart of God, and to our own vocation to be cross-bearing people.

5. Jesus & God

Summary conclusion -

Quoting Jesus and the Victory of God:

I have argued that Jesus’ underlying aim was based on his faith-awareness of vocation. He believed humself called, by Israel’s God, to evoke the traditions which promised YHWH’s return to Zion, and the .. traditions which spoke of a human figure sharing the divine throne; to enact those traditions in his own journey to Jerusalem, his messianic act in the Temple, and his death at the hands of the pagans (in the hope of subsequent vindication); and thereby to embody YHWH’s return. (121)
We see in Jesus “the biblical portait of YHWH come to life”
What he is not saying - He does not think that Jesus “knew he was God” in a mathematical, observational sense, but more of an intuitive understanding, “grasped in faith, sustained in prayer, tested in confrontation, agonized over in further prayer and doubt, and implemented in action (122)”
Western theology has tended to produce a docetic Jesus
We should reframe our view of “God” around who we see in Jesus
“Once we see who Jesus is, we are not only summoned to follow him in worship, love and adoration, but to shape our world by reflecting his glory in it” (124)

6. The Challenge of Easter

Summary conclusion -

The gospel accounts of resurrection are nothing like heavenly visions, or apocalyptic revelations
Jesus’ body seems to be physical, although transformed
These appearances did not keep happening throughout the beginnings of the early church
We must explain the absence of any veneration of Jesus’ tomb, and the immediate primacy of the first day of the week among early christians.
The halluciantion theory just doesn’t hold historical water.

I believe, therefore, that the only way forward for us as historians is to grasp the nettle, realizing of course that we are at the borders of language, philosophy, of history, and of theology. We had better learn to take seriously the witness of the entire early church, that Jesus of Nazareth was raised bodily to a new sort of life, three days afrer his execution.

7. Walking to Emmaus in a Postmodern World

8. The Light of the World

The problem of the one and many

Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:35:00 +0000

The core problem: which is more basic, the one (the overarching structure) or the many (the individual)?

Kelly discusses how the Triune God provides a fruitful approach to the problem, in that God is both one and many in himself. He also highlights the problems that arise when God is removed from the conversation. The result is a reduction to the one - and totalitarianism (whether statist or societal homogeneity, or a reduction to the many - and collectivism.

In displacing the true one and the many - the Triune God - modern society has ‘liberated’ society from Christianity into a depressing bondage of the shifting consensus of the secularist elite, whoc control to some degree the Western media. This is a bondage to the one, which brooks no rivals. In displacing the reality of God and eternity it has focused all attention and all hopes on our brief life in this world. It has led to the widespread belief in the omnicompetence of politics, which has produced massive intolerance by those who preach tolderance, or - in effect - a selective tolerance.

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 560
[[ Gunton, The One, the Three, and the Many ]]

The Attitude of Heresy

Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:10:00 +0000

Oftentimes, it’s the accusation against orthodox that they have taken reason to the extreme and try to find a rational answer to every mystery of the Faith, but in fact, the opposite is the case. Kelly, after discussing how “the epistemological principle of the Arians (was) … the what men cannot understand cannot be true,”” writes:

Heretical thinking in all ages allows ‘contemporary’ patterns of thought to determine what can or cannot be true about the nature of God and of His salvation. Therefore, Scripture must be reinterpreted in order to fit into this mold. This attitude did not die with the Arians. It would reassert itself with power during the Enlightenment and especially in the new form of Unitarianism (Socinianism) which arose after the Renaissance, during the early Reformation, and thus shortly before the flowering of the enlightment. It possibly gave some impetus to the Enlightenment.

As Hilary says, “Let us assume that God has full knowledge of himself, and bow with humble reverence to his words.”

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 554

God has tied knowledge of himself to a chosen community of faith

Sun, 22 Jan 2023 21:46:00 +0000

God has tied knowledge of himself to a chosen community of faith

Created: 2023-01-22 21:46

There is no doubt that the words we consider Scripture were penned by human beings within contingent history. They are in every respect “immanent” but we also consider them the “transcendent” word of God.

Kelly writes,

God does not reveal exactly how it is that immanent words are also transcendent words; nor how the reflections from within one limited and imperfect human culture are universally true and eternally binding. What He does is to give us the results of a process that surpasses our understanding. He gives us the completed revelation of His word to and through the believing community of Israel, with which the Church of God is in continuity. Thus we know God from our fellowship with Isreal in and through its divinely given revalation. God does not give Humself to be known apart from that chosen community of faith. As Blaise Pascal said, ‘He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; He is not the God of the Philosophers.’

This particularity was particularly abhorrent to the enlightenment thinkers in pre-revolutionary France, and remains so to this day:

That God should be known by a particular revelation in a particular community of faith was abhorrent to them, and in many respects their hostility to the particularility of the revelation of God’s truth has constituted the deep, underlying fault-line diving Western culture from the eighteenth to the twenty-first century

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 423, 435

NPP Misappropriating 2nd Temple Judaism in NT

Sun, 22 Jan 2023 21:37:00 +0000

Kelley disusses the covenant, and how the NPP stresses the oneness of the covenant in 1st century Judaism, but misses a critical distinction. Sanders’ focus on “Covenantal Nomism,” is correct in a sense that this was indeed a proper way to understand the law covenants, it was never Israel’s true hope. Quoting Michael Horton, he makes a great point that while covenantal nomism may indeed reflect the posture of 2nd Temple Judaism, we can say 2nd Temple Judaism was wrong and in conflict with the covenantal perspective of the NT.

Dunn, like the NPP generally, has room for only a single covenant. Since it must be primarily gracious, elements that seem to suggest a different kind of covenant (a conditional law-covenant) must be assimilated. I do not doubt that this approach generally fits Second Temple Judaism. In fact, the conflation of these two covenants (and therefor of law and gospel) is precisely the focus of the Pauline Critique.

I think this is a great point, although I hestitate to follow Horton’s program in full.

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 415

Removal from Eden as an act of Grace

Sun, 22 Jan 2023 21:31:00 +0000

Quoting Irenaeus:

But he set a bound to his [state of sin] by interposing death, and thus causing sin to cease, putting and end to it by the dissolution of the flesh, so that man, ceasing at length to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God.

The whole account of the aftermath of the fall is abounding in grace. Judgement is carried out, yes, but along with in many acts of grace foreshadowing or outright predicting the coming redemption.

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p.397

The Fatherhood of God

Tue, 10 Jan 2023 21:24:00 +0000

Scripture uses “motherly” characteristics in describing God’s actions towards us, but always speaks of him as Father.

One can only rejoice in these ‘motherly’ characteristics of the Living God towards us, His often erring children! Without failing to appreciate these qualities, we must note that the Bible clearly and directly speaks of God as our Father, but never as our mother; it teaches the divine paternity, but never the divine maternity.

On the anthropomorphisms being designed by God to convey the truth about reality (citing Paul Wells):

Father and Son are not andromorphic symbols projected by man into eternity, but anthropomorphisms selected in the divine wisdom as appropriate God’s historical self-revelation because they correspond in a certain way to realities, to certain functions and orders, existing in the immanent Trinity.

Why not God as mother? Citing Paul Wells that the reason is God’s transcendence over what he has created.

Therefore it was not out of anti-feminism or patriarchy that in Israel the idolatry of goddess worship was proscribed. God’s people were to understand that God is not comparable to the goddesses of the fertility cults which give birth to a natural cycle of productivity God alone is creator and his election establishes his people through his will…

Even though all societies have been patriarchal to some extent, many societies have indeed worshipped feminine and androgynous deities.

While there may have been few (or no?) cultures that were matriarchal or strictly egalitarian, there have indeed been many that worshipped female and androgynous deities. It is not at all clear that these pagan societies gave any better treatment to women than did those who worshipped God as Father (nor, in fact, as good a treatment).

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p.380, 382, 384
Wells, God and Gender

Majesty of God

Tue, 10 Jan 2023 20:55:00 +0000

On human majesty as a signpost to divine majesty:

There is such a thing as human majesty, and there is such a thing as divine majesty. With C.S. Lewis, I tend to think that earthly majesty was ordained by God primarily in order to bear witness to that ineffable, heavenly majesty that is infinitely above it. In other words, earthly kings and queens certainly have served important governmental purposes in history, but the most important thing about them (at their very best) is that they are frail testimonies to the Majesty above.

Power alone is insufficient for majesty - think Hitler, Stalin, Mao - “no one every accused them of majesty. It takes beauty of personhood and character.”

Divine Majest and utter humiliation - the greatest glory being the glory of the cross
Majesty and the right of universal control - God has the moral right to total control of everything. Isaiah 45:9-12. Also, Jeremiah 18:6-8 and Romans 9.
- This authority is the strength of the martyrs
- Quoting William Law:
  
  On the other hand, would you know who is the greatest saint in the world? It is not he whoe prays most or fasts most; it is not he who gives the most alms, or is most eminent for temperance, chastity or justice; but it is he who is always thankful to God, who wills everything that God willeth, who receives everything as an instance of God’s goodness, and has a heart always ready to praise God for it.

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 342, 344

Trinity in the OT

Mon, 09 Jan 2023 22:17:00 +0000

Speaking of the “Let us make man in our image” in Genesis 1, Kelly cites George A.F. Knight challenging the modern tendency to deny any trinitarian hint in this text:

Let us dismiss out of hand some the ‘explanations’ of this peculiar phenomenon of a plural word for God made by exegetes whose premises were consciously or unconsciously firmly planted on the speculative approach of the Greeks. Some have suggested, for example, that the word is a plural of majesty. But that is surely to read into Hebrew speech a modern way of thinking. The kings of Israel and Judah are all addressed in the singular in our biblical records. Or again, I have seen the suggestion that here we have the ‘we’ of the newspaper editor!.

And then N.T. Wright suggesting that the idea of numerical oneness in God was a later Judaistic development:

IIndeed, we find strong evidence during this period of Jewish groups and individuals who, speculating on the meaning of some difficult passages in scripture (Daniel 7, for example, or Genesis 1), suggested that the divine might encompass a plurality.

As to whether the NT saw any conflict between their view of God, and that portrayed in the OT, Kelly cites B.B. Warfield:

The New Testament writers certainly were not conscious of being ‘setters forth of strange gods.’ To their own apprehension they worshipped and proclaimed just the God of Israel and they laid no less stress than the Old Testament upon His unity (John 17:3, 1 Co. 8:4, 1 Tim. 2:5). THey do not then place two new gods by the side of Jehovah as alike with Him to be served and worshipped; they conceive of Jehovah as Himself at once Father, Son, and Holy Spirit… Without apparent misgiving they take over Old Testament passages and apply them to Father, Son, and Spirit indifferently. Obviously, they understand themselves, and wish to be understood, as setting forth in the Father, Son, and Spirit just the one God that the God of the Old Testament revelation is…

Some OT passages

The creation account as mentioned above, speaks with some indication of varied activity. God creates, the Spirit hovers, God’s Word performatively commands.

Herman Bavinck suggested that the ‘ontological Trinity’ was necessary for the ‘economical’ work of creation to have occurred ‘outside of the being of God:’ ‘…without generation creation would not be possible. If in an absolute sense God could not communicate himself to the Son, he would be even less able, in a relative sense, to communicate himself to his creature. If God were not triune, creation would not be possible.’

See Kelly 456-471 for an exposition of several facets of OT revelation of the triune God, including the many theophanies. He laments:

Before the rise of biblical higher criticism, the Christian theological tradition, both East and West, Catholic and Protestant, generally understood the Old Testament theophanies to be pre-incarnate appeareances of the Second Person of the Trinity, Christ Himself.

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 325
[[ Wright, The New Testament and the People of God ]], p. 259
Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 450-471
[[ Warfield, Biblical Foundations ]], p. 88, 159

God is not distant

Mon, 09 Jan 2023 22:12:00 +0000

There is no “gap” between God and the world as the deists posit:

Above all, it means that God is constantly present with His creation to work out His purposes. Unlike the dualism of the Deistic Enlightenment, there is not a gap between God’s every-present control and the world of nature and science. He is not a distance clockmaker, who leaves the world to run on its own. He is always with it, superintending every aspect of its reality both seen and unseen.

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 318

God Is His Own Proof

Mon, 09 Jan 2023 22:02:00 +0000

Clement of Alexandria and Athanasius:

‘If to provide a proof means a kind of knowledge that requires a principle more profound than He whome we wish to demonstrate, then there is no proof for God.’ Athanasius said: ‘The Deity does not submit to logical demonstrations, but to the faith and the piety of reason.’

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 278

Why God exists as Three Persons Rather than One Person

Mon, 09 Jan 2023 21:49:00 +0000

At the root of it, love (which is a character of God’s being) requires more than one person. Kelly refers to Richard of St. Victor’s comment on this:

He saw that it was because of the nature of love. For love to exist, more than one Person is required so that the love may be shared. ‘One never says that someone properly possesses love if he only loves himself; for it to be true love, it must go out towards another. Consequently, where a plurality of persons is lacking, it is impossible for there to be love.’

(This seems intuitive and aligns with the John 17 vision of the relationship within the Godhead. It does make me think about John Piper’s consistent emphasis on God’s Passion for his own glory, which seems self-evident in scripture and which he argues is appropriate since the highest being that can be loved is God, and it makes sense for God to seek his own glory as the highest good. This is good and right, although I think the trinitarian character of that love and glory seeking provides a much richer vision. Not that I think John Piper would deny such, but it often reads in some of his texts in a monadic sense.)

That such a interpersonal relationship is inherent to God (quoting Staniloae):

If God needed to relate to something outside himself, this would imply that he lacked something distinct from himself. Divie relations must take place in God himself, although between distinct ‘I’s’, so that the relation and hence the love may be real.

Later, discussing the development of the concept of Person as expounded by Richard of St. Victor, Kelly cites T.F. Torrance regarding how our concept of Person is derivative of the theological concept:

It was from a theological understanding of God’s personal and personalizing self-communication, creating personal reciprocity between us and himself, that the Christian concept of the person arose, which is applicable in a creaturely way to persons in relation to one another, but which reflects the transcendent way in which the three divine Persons are interrelated in the Holy Trinity.

Without the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, there would be no Western concept of personhood.

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 274-275
Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p.495

Rationalism and Revolution

Sat, 07 Jan 2023 17:03:00 +0000

Quoting Stahl on the enlightenment underpinnings of the French Revolution:

The revolution is rationalism exteriorised; rationalism is the revolution internalized. Both the one and the other are the mortal disease of our century [in 1852]. Some say that rationalism is unbelief. This is false; it believe in man. Some say that the revolution is the denigration of authority. This is false; it understands simply that mankind is the unique source of power and the only goal of society. Both one and the other set mankind free from God. One nexessarily leads to the emancipation of the flesh and to communism; the other to the apotheosis of human reason. Both together lead to the man of sin predicted by Saint Paul.

This inevitable totalitarian statism is contrast with Christian alternatives such as Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty, which does not seek to unravel the created order.

Kuyper’s ideal is profoundly unliek the Enlightenment theory, which attempted to dissolve the somewhat independent social orders and institutions of late medieval society, so as to strengthen the hands of the secular state to reform mand and society towards a paradisaical condition (that wound up with vast wars and totalitarian tyranny in many places). Instead, he returns to the biblical doctrine of creation, which lies behind ‘constitutional government’ with its ordered structure of various spheres, all directly under the law of God…

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 230, 244

Materialist Naturalism is just another religion

Sat, 07 Jan 2023 16:50:00 +0000

In a footnote when speaking of how the pagan religions are not viewed compatibly by the NT, and that faith in Christ delivers from the power of Satan and the “torments of his false religions,” Kelly insightfully notes:

It is difficult not to see the powerful modern anti-religion of materialistic naturalism (that seeks to elevate its atheistic presuppositions into the accredited ‘findings of science’) as, in the end of the day just a another religion (massively influential and presitigous though it is). Though it would presumably disdain the older, grosser religions of pagan antiquity, could it not actually constitute an illustration of Jesus’ parable in Luke 11:14-26: i.e. when one demon is cast out (but the life is not filled with the Spirit of God), then seven other demons come in to fill the vacuum, so that the latter state is worse than the first? In that sense our apostate modern culture may be in far worse shape than ancient pagan idolatry.

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 187

The purpose of all creation to lead us to communion with the Creator

Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:12:00 +0000

The light of every star, the structure of every cell, the functioning of every organic system, the majesty of every law, the voice of every conscience, the development of every creative potential and the ‘change and decay’ and renewal of every aspect of nature are all established with their own significance and meaning to be patiently perceived and proclaimed by created persons. An thus all of these created realities being found to be what they are, all of them - even if it be in a mute sort of way - level by level, lift up the eyes of those who behold them in faith to the Triune personal reality, who called everything into being, continually sustains it, and guides it to His appointed purpose. That purpose is personal; an ever-growing, ever-deepening, ever-beautifying communion of life and love between redeemed created persons and the ineffable one, undivided community of Three uncreated Persons, who created them, redeemed them, and will not be without them.

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 180

Those who never heard the gospel

Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:05:00 +0000

In speaking about the role of the community of the people of God in carrying forward the revelation of the personal knowledge of God, he makes reference to those outside the realm of known verbal revelation:

For reasons known to Himself, God has chosen to reveal His light gradually to the chosen community of grace, and also to convey the verbal message from them to the rest of the world gradually. It is not given to us believers to know all that has or has not transpired between God and the rest of humanity outside the sound of His Word. At the very least, we must say with the Apostle Paul in light of the florious, universal gospel, ‘And the times of this ifnorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent…’

However, there are indications of people who are outside the reach of the covenant who have nevertheless been granted true knowledge of the Living God. Kelly mentions Mechizedek, Job, and Balaam, and quotes Augustine:

…there is nothing far-fetched in the belief that among other peoples besides the Jews there existed men in whom this mystery was revealed, and who were compelled to go on to proclaim what they know.

This does not present a problem for the eternal application of the the work of Christ, which, since God is eternally can be applied at all times everywhere.

Historically, the pouring out is only subsequent to the divine acceptance and vindication of Christ’s atoning work for sinners, but with the God who inhabits eternity and created time as His servant, the concepts of ‘previous’, ‘contemporary’, and ‘subseqent’ are not a hindering reality as they are for us mere humans. The cross was in God’s heart before the world was made (c.f. Rev. 13:8), and His eternal SPirit is well able to apply it at any and every point of rolling time to whomsoever He will, whever their privileges or lack of them at any one ‘time’.

Quoting John Donne -

I know God can be as merciful as those tender Fathers present him to be; and I would be as charitable as they are. And therefore humbly embracing that manifestation of the Son, which he hath afforded me, I leave God, to his unsearchable ways of working upon others, without further inquisition.

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 179
Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 215, 217, 222

The witness of an intelligible universe

Thu, 05 Jan 2023 20:57:00 +0000

The intelligibility of the universe itself calls out for rational explanation and the idea that it is also limited to lower orders is irrational.

Kelly writes:

The very intelligibility of the universe leads any thinking person to a higher level above it to give rationality and consciousness their meaning. A rationality enclosed within the life and death cycle of limited nature would finally end in irrationality. Even to argue that life and the world are irrational requires the employment of rationality to frame such arguments. And similarly, to deny the existence of overarching good on the basis of the reality of evil requires the assumption of some supremely good standard by which one calls evil ‘evil’. The unique existence of the universe and of man within it cries out for a relationship with the Triune God who created all, in order to give it some meaning.

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 172

Tips for socializing

Mon, 02 Jan 2023 17:32:00 +0000

A lot of us are awkward at socialization. Adams book has some helpful basic guidance (drawing on Dale Carnegie and others):

Some basic ice breaker questions:

What’s your name? Where do you live? Do you have a family? What do you do for a living? Do you have any hobbies/sports? Do you have any travel plans? — location: 1953 ^ref-60951

The simple reality that people like talking about themselves, so giving them a chance will endear them to you.

Nothing is easier than talking about one’s self. I would go so far as to say that 99 percent of the general public love talking about themselves. When you ask a stranger a personal question, you make that person happy. Your question relieves the stress of awkward silence and gets the conversation moving. Best of all, it signals that you have interest in the stranger, which most people interpret as friendliness and social confidence, even if you’re faking it. And faking social confidence leads to the real thing over time. — location: 1963 ^ref-43831

References

[[ Adams-How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big ]]

Calvin on Kingdom of God

Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:30:00 +0000

What human reason can discern with regard to God’s Kingdom and to spiritual insight…consists chiefly in three things:

(1) knowing God
(2) knowing his father favor in our behalf
(3) knowing how to frame our life according to the rule of his law

This is a great distillation of God’s kingdom, and reminds me of two key passages in Scripture:

Micah 6:8 - He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
John 17:3 - And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

References

Cited in Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p.162
[[ Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion ]], II.2.18

Know Jesus, Know God. No Jesus, No God

Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:18:00 +0000

Kelly brings some of the pillars of Christian Theology in support of the idea that our true knowledge of God is inseparable from our knowledge of Jesus Christ and not derivable from creation and conscience.

Martin Luther:

Begin your search with Christ and stay with Him and cleave to Him, and if your own thoughts and reason, or another man’s, would lead you elsewhere, shut your eyes and say: I should and will know of no other God than Christ, my Lord…But if you abandon this clear prospect, and climb up into God’s majesty on high, you must stumble, fear and fall because you have withdrawn yourself from God’s grace and the have dared to stare at the Majesty unveiled, which is too high and overpowering for you. For apart from Christ, Nature can neither perceive nor attain the grace and love of God, and apart from Him is nothing but wrath and condemnation.

Barth:

But the voice which reigns, the voice by which we were taught by God Himself concerning God, was the voice of Jesus Christ…In avoiding the difference sources of error, we saw that they had one feature in common: the negligence or arbitrariness with which even in the Church the attempt was made to go past or to go beyond Jesus Christ in the consideration and conception and definition of God…But when the theology allows itself on any pretext to be jostled away from that name, God is inevitably crowded out by a hypnotised image of man. Theology must begin with Jesus Christ, and not with general principles…Otherwise, the highest reality can, and inevitably will, be reduced to the flattest unreality.

Calvin:

After citing Calvin on Kingdom of God, Kelly quotes Calvin as saying:

In the first two points - and especially in the second - the greatest geniuses are blinder than moles! Certainly, I do not deny that one can read competent and apt statements about God here and there in the philosophers, but these always show a certain giddy imagination…the Lord indeed gave them a slight taste of his divinity in such a way that their seeing did not direct them to the truth, much less enable them to see it…Besides, although they may chance to sprinkle their books with droplets of truthm how many monstrous lies defile them. In short, they never even sensed that assurance of God’s benevolence toward us (without which man’s understanding can only be filled with boundless confusion). Human reason, therefore, neither approaches, nor strives toward, nore even takes a straight aim at, this truth: to understand who the true God is or what sort of God he wishes to be toward us.

natural_theology

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p. 155
[[ Barth, Church Dogmatics - Volume 2 ]], II.2.4-5

Origins of Human Religion

Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:05:00 +0000

Human religion (i.e. idolatry) is dark and empty. The historical reality is not that man has slowly risen from animism to higher order forms of religion, but quite the opposite.

Instead of following the revelation of God in nature in the direction of the true religion of glorifying God, humankind perverts its testimony and so descends into the depths of the false religion of idolatry. As Meyer stated: ‘For heathenism is not the primeval religion, from which man might gradually have risen to a knowledge of the true God, but is, on the contrary, the result of falling away from the known original revelation of the true God in His works.’ Idolatry results from the appalling choice of ‘changing the truth of God into a lie’ (Rom. 1:25). It indicates a devastating, perverted condition, first in the human mind, and then, inevitably, in human behavior.

It isn’t that the light of nature didn’t bear witness, but that the sinful human heart distorts and denies that witness as it descends to idolatry.

Romans 1 and Acts 14 and 17, for all their differences in historical and cultural context, are agreed in ascribing the origins of human religion to the witness of God to Himself in the created order, as well as in the personality of man (God’s offspring). And they are agreed in evaluating the results of this divine witness very negatively in light of what mankind has actually done with it. They should that the truth has been perverted into self-serving idolatry by sinful humanity.

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p.134-144

Hume's Denial of cause and effect

Mon, 02 Jan 2023 15:42:00 +0000

Kelly lambasts Hume for his reckless denial of cause and effect. It’s patently absurd on its surface and seems it’s only purpose is to reject the God who is the necessarily conclusion of such a premise.

Hume’s statement to which he reacts:

Before we are reconciled to this doctrine, how often we must repeat to ourselves, that the simple view of any two objects or actions, however related, can never give us any idea of power, or of a connexion betwixt them: that this idea arises from a repetition of their union: that the repetition neither discovers nore causes anything in the objects, but has an influence only on the mind, byt that customary transition that it produces: that this customary transition is therefore that same with the power and necessity; which are consequently qualities of perceptions, not of objects, and are internally felt by the soul, and not perceived externally in bodies?

Kelly’s response:

This denial of cause and effect seems to be a total dereliction of all good sense! Why would a very clever man like Hume have seriously attempted to establish such a position? What Stanley Jaki said about the Idealists in his Gifford Lectures in the University of Edinburgh (not far from where Hume once lived) seems to be the correct answer: ‘The idealists got rid of rationality to avoid God.’ By the same token, it would seem that Hume got rid of causality to get rid of God. But in so doing, Hume would also have made modern science impossible, had his assumptions been followed.

The impossibility of science following from this foundation is critical, as often the philosophers such as Hume are counted on the “side” of science when the interaction between faith and science takes place.

The fact is that causality is axiomatic and need no proof.

Causations is a basic axiom which all who live in the world have to assume in order even to survive, and after basic survival, it has to be assumed in order to make any sense of the realities around us.

He goes on to cite Thomas Reid as having debunked Hume in his own time with his Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man.

References

Hume, Treatise of Human Nature, I.III.XIV
Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1, p.87-88

Anselm's Ontological Proof

Mon, 02 Jan 2023 15:24:00 +0000

For believers, against the unbeliever

Quoting B.M. Bonansea in agreement with Karl Barth’s contention that Anselm’s Proslogion was never attempting to stand outside of faith and prove to an unbeliever: #presuppositionalism

More precisely, the argument is not meant to convince an atheist or an agnostic - no theistic argument will ever do so - but only those who have been enlightened by faith and are favourably disposed towards it. It is true that in his reply to Gaunilo’s objections Anselm writes: ‘It was a fool against whom the argument of my Proslogion was directed.’ However, this does not mean that the argument was written for a fool but rather against a fool, i.e, one whome we would today call an unbeliever.

This supports the contention that the theistic proofs have value, but not primarily in the persuasion of the unbeliever but in the strengthening of the believer against the wiles of unbelief.

Necessity of an Ontological Proof

Kelly proposes that some kind of “ontological proof” is necessarily hidden in every system of thought.

Rather, the point is this: systems of thought that reject the Holy Trinity need some other ultimate reference point to make their system work; some necessary thing. It would appear that truly ultimate reference points impose themselves; that is, they have to be ‘ontologically assumed’ although this will not usually be stated (not is it necessarily conscious in most cases).

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1 , p. 69, 75
[[ B.M Bonansea, Man and His Approach to God in John Duns Scotus ]], p. 175
See also the relevent discussion of Hilary on the foolishness of unbelief

Prayer as the necessary context for theology

Mon, 02 Jan 2023 15:05:00 +0000

In the section on Faith and Prayer, Kelly draws out how the church has always held to the necessity of prayer and the help of the Holy Spirit to do theology properly.

In one interesting segment, he mentions the Jesus Prayer which I was first exposed to while reading [[ The Way of the Pilgrim ]] which is a classic in Orthodox literature, and is mostly about the Jesus prayer. I was turned off by the book as I felt they had supplied a magical incantational, eastern spirituality type of force to voluminous repetitions of this fact. However, Kelly mentions its ancient history and says

No doubt, this ‘Jesus prayer’ was connected to the much earlier kyrie eleison! found in the Mass of the ancient, undivided Church.

This gives me pause about rejecting the prayer outright, even if I wish to stay away from mystical abuses of it.

On the general topic of prayer as a pre-condition of theological understanding, he quotes #Calvin helpfully:

When we come to hear the sermon or take up the Bible, we must not have the foolish arrogance of thinking that we shall easily understand everything we hear or read. But we must come with reverence, we must wait entirely upon God, knowing that we need to be taught by His Holy Spirit, and that without Him we cannot understand anything that is show us in His Word.

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1 pp. 52, 58
[[ Calvin, Commentary on 2 Tim. ]] 3:16

Hilary on the Foolishness of Unbelief

Mon, 02 Jan 2023 14:57:00 +0000

Quoting Hilary, Kelly explains how it is belief rather than unbelief that is true wisdom:

Thus all unbelief is foolishness, for it takes such wisdom as its own finite perception can attain, and measuring infinity by that petty scale, concludes that what it cannot understand must be impossible. Unbelief is the result of incapacity engaged in argument. Men are sure that an event never happened, because they have made up their minds that it could not happen. (De Tinitate, III.24 p.19

References

Kelly, Systematic Theology - Volume 1 p. 19

Psalm 33

Sun, 23 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0000

All who know the one who knows all
Can’t help but sing with hearts enthralled
Beautiful sounds welling up from within
A new song resounds and a celebration begins

The heavens declare and the trees give assent
The rocks proclaim and the stars emit
Throughout what we see what we read is confirmed
His word is right, true, and always stands firm

The one who spoke in the garden of delight
By the same voice made the starry night
We seek power to secure hope from afar
But which of us could bottle the ocean in a jar

That alone is reason enough to fear him
To seek and find a way to draw near him
His authority extends to being at all
At his word the “no thing” began to stand tall

Imagine a vase demanding which flowers it holds
Or a refrigerator considering whether to be cold
All day long the nations clamor after power
They think they decide “this will be our finest hour”

Yet he who made the heart of every schemer
Has plans of his own and unlike the dreamers
Every thought of his heart is certain to pass
Every plan and design has been built to last

Those who walk on the road he sets out
Will find themselves secure without shadow of doubt
Doubt itself knows not to question his word
As timid disciples learning the morning of the third

You may seek shelter in a bunker and walls give way
Expect peace to prevail and a terror comes to slay
Rest in your money and find prices increasing
Political solutions and corruption unceasing

Yet the faithful creator is an anchor to trust
His riches can’t be stolen nor eaten by rust
The famine may come but his own will eat well
An inheritance awaits that not even death can dispel

We who hope in him together as one
Seek our joy from our maker as plants seek the sun
May you fill us LORD with your unfailing love
And the Spirit of Christ rest upon us as a dove

Psalm 33

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 13:35:00 +0000

Psalm 33:1–22

1 Shout for joy in YHWH, O you righteous!
Praise befits the upright. (Praise is lovely to the upright)
2 Give thanks to YHWH with the lyre;
make melody to him with the harp of ten strings!
3 Sing to him a new song;
play skillfully (make beautiful music) on the strings, with loud shouts.
4 For the word of the Lord is upright, (cf. v.6-9)
and all his work is done in faithfulness. (cf. v.10-12)
5 He loves righteousness and justice; (cf. v.13-17)
the earth is full of the steadfast love (hesed) of the Lord. (cf. v.18-22)
6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
and by the breath (ruah/spirit/breath) of his mouth all their host.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea as a heap;
he puts the deeps in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
9 For he spoke, and it came to be; (“he said” and “there was”)
he commanded, and it stood firm (was established).
10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
he frustrates the plans of the peoples.
11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever,
the plans of his heart to all generations.
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord,
the people whom he has chosen as his heritage (his own special possession, his inheritance)!
13 The Lord looks down from heaven;
he sees all the children of man (sons of Adam);
14 from where he sits enthroned
he looks out (he gazes) on all the inhabitants of the earth,
15 he who fashions the hearts of them all
and observes all their deeds.
16 The king is not saved by his great army;
a warrior is not delivered by his great strength.
17 The war horse is a false hope for salvation,
and by its great might it cannot rescue.
18 Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear him,
on those who hope in his steadfast love,
19 that he may deliver their soul from death
and keep them alive in famine.
20 Our soul waits for the Lord;
he is our help and our shield.
21 For our heart is glad in him,
because we trust in his holy name.
22 Let your steadfast love, O Lord, be upon us,
even as we hope in you.

v.1-3 A call to praise

Interpretive Questions:

Initial observations?
Since there is no title to 33, is there any relationship between this and the previous psalm?
What is the psalmist calling for in v.1-3?
How do we obey the command to “sing a new song?”
Why does making beautiful music matter?

Observations:

This psalm does not contain a preface, which is a good hint to consider the psalm before and see how they may relate to one another. When we look at Psalm 32, we see David’s penitential psalm, extolling the blessings of YHWH’s forgiveness:
- Blessed is the forgiven one
- The overwhelming weight of sin, which is released upon confessing to God and being forgiven
- Therefore, let all the faithful pray to him and find shelter in his protection
- YHWH promises to teach and guide those who trust in him
  - His eye is upon them
  - His steadfast love surrounds them
- It ends with a call to “Be glad in YHWH, and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy (lit. call forth songs of joy) all you upright in heart!”
So as we come to Psalm 33, we see the call to praise is picked up and continued. Some have even suggested that this is the song of rejoiced called forth by Psalm 32.
Rejoice in YHWH and make beautiful music to him with instruments, singing new songs, and shouting praise.
- The language is glorious, victorious, celebration. The shouts are the kind of thing you’d hear from an army going into battle or after the victory is won.
- Some Christians traditions forgo musical instruments during worship, but psalms like these seem to preclude the idea that use of instruments would actually be wrong.
“Sing a new song…” – the works of God continue throughout history, both in the unfolding plan of salvation in the biblical account, and the ongoing providence of God by his Spirit and in the Church since then. Genuine praise flows from the heart in response to experiencing the steadfast love of the Lord, his mercy and his faithfulness. This calls forth new songs of worship from the heart for new examples of God’s faithfulness. This is good and right in his eyes. Sometimes this is an old song sung with new meaning, as we appropriate the words of the hymn to our new experiences, but sometimes we just need new words to convey our praise.
“Make beautiful music…” – The phrase play skillfully on the strings may be better translated “make beautiful music”. Hand in hand with our new song is a call for artistic beauty in our worship.

v.4-12 For His Word

Interpretive Questions

What do verses 4-9 say about his word?
What does YHWH love according to these verses?
What does it mean to say the earth is full of the YHWH’s steadfast love (v.5)
What do you make of the language in v.6-9?
What comfort do you find in knowing that God’s word created the heavens?
In what way does the fact of creation ground the call for the whole earth to fear him? How does this inform our efforts to engage unbelievers?
In a world of unbelieving ideologies, and rulers of nations ever bent on building new towers of Babel, what do vv.10-11 teach us about how history really works? How can this bring us comfort and counter our tendency towards pessimism and despair?
What does it mean today for a nation to have YHWH as their God?

Observations:

YHWH’s word is:
- Upright
- Faithful/True/Trustworthy
- Effectual (his work parallels his word)
- Powerful/Creative
- Authoritative
- Awesome
He loves “righteousness and justice” (think right principles and right action)
“his steadfast love” – this is the Hebrew word Hesed, which carries with it the idea of kindness and loyalty. With reference to YHWH, it has the sense of his faithfulness to his covenant promises, both forgiving sin and judging it according to his mercy and character. (Ex. 34:6-7)
- “The point is not that everyone experiences it equally but that the created order that all enjoy, the norms of right and wrong written on all hearts, these saturate the experience of all who enjoy God’s good creation.”¹
“By the word of YHWH…” – v6-9 reflect back on the creation account in Genesis 1. God created all things by his powerful word. In the NT (John 1), we see that this word was in the beginning with God, that all things were made through him, and that this word became flesh. Jesus is the Word through whom the Father made the world.
“by the breath of his mouth…” – His breath here, the same word as Spirit, calls to mind Genesis 1:2 and the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters. Altogether in this passage, we have YHWH, his Word, and his Spirit active in Creation.
The language of v.7 is evocative – obviously first and foremost is the gathering of the waters in the creation account, but the meaning ripples out throughout the Bible. Taming the wild sea is uniquely God’s domain. You can think of the flood, the gathering of the waters of the Exodus and the crossing of the Jordan, and even the NT account of Jesus calming the storm and sea in Galilee.
V8. The fact of creation itself is sufficient to require the whole earth be in fear and awe of him. All are his creatures. Independence fades away when you realize your very existence depends on him. In verse 9, it literally says “he said, and it was” which calls to mind the constant refrain of Gen.1 “And God said, … And there was”. He speaks and it comes to pass. As Romans 4 says, the God who calls things that are not and they become. His authority extends to existence itself.
v.10-11 As in Psalm 2, the nations rage and the peoples plot but ultimately it is in vain. Their plans are foiled, but his stand forever; their purposes are thwarted, his stand for all generations. In a time when it seems like the intent of all nations is contrary to God’s revealed will, we can rest assured that they will come to nothing.
“Blessed is the nation…” – this primarily has in view Israel, who God chose as his special possession (Deut. 7:6). She lives out this blessing, if she rightly applies her calling. They have received YHWHs counsel and know his plans for the future. But it applies in general to the Church across the world (described in similar terms 1 Pet. 2:9), and in principle to any nation that is willing to acknowledge and submit to YHWHs rule. Their plans will not be frustrated because the Lord has plans for them, and his saving care is upon them.

v.13-19 For his Sovereign care

Interpretive Questions:

What do vv.13-15 reveal about the scope of God’s care for humanity? What does the language used evoke?
Despite this intimate knowledge, by and large humanity does not look to him for their rescue. What do vv16-17 say people tend to trust in? How do they fail?
Where do you tend to put your hope? What lesson should these verses provide for our civic life?
What comfort do verses 18-19 bring us?
How does the parallelism in v18 gives insight into the words “those who fear him?”

Observations:

The previous verses alone might give the impression that YHWH is a simply the national deity of Israel, and they are distinctly a people chosen for his special possession, but his purposes with them are yet very global. YHWH is not a territorial deity but is the creator of all, and takes careful notice of the lives and deeds of all humanity.
- He “gazes”, indicating special attention.
- It’s the “sons of Adam” he looks at – emphasizing their connection to the first couple
- He “forms the hearts of all” – there is an intimacy that is unmatched in the relationship between every human and the Creator God, even when they refuse to acknowledge it. He knows them better than they know themselves.
Leaders, warriors, and weapons cannot rescue. Not sometimes, not partially; if deliverance comes, it is because YHWH has delivered, whether we acknowledge it or not.
- A strong military may make you feel safe in a land surrounded by enemies, but every military in history has fallen. Israel was in a particularly precarious location and the temptation was constant to seek salvation by some stronger power.
- Isa. 31:1 - Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, who rely on horses, who trust in the multitude of their chariots and in the great strength of their horsemen, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel, or seek help from the LORD.
- What are we drawn to today? Money (personal wealth, economic prosperity), Leaders (presidents, politicians, judges), Knowledge/Science? Basic goodness of humanity?
In contrast to the inability of fleshly strength to deliver, YHWHs eye is upon them – he gives special attention to them with the purpose of delivering them from death and keeping them alive in famine.
- In the parallelism, fear him = hope in his steadfast love.

v.20-22 For his steadfast love

Interpretive Questions:

What does it mean to wait on the Lord? Why do we need this encouragement?
How does the word “our” affect our reading of 20-21?

Observations:

In contrast to the unstable plans of men, and the insecurity of their strength, YHWH is a sure help and protector and worth waiting on. May we constantly seek the Lord for patience to wait for his timing and to not force our own way and time.
- Examples of failing
  - Abraham and Hagar
  - Israel and Saul (and Saul on multiple occasions)
  - Jewish rebellions against Rome
  - People of Judea and Jesus
- Examples of waiting
  - Israel at the Red Sea
  - Israel at Jericho
  - David when fleeing (both Saul and Absalom)
The collective heart and soul is striking here – the whole assembly sings as one body – “our soul waits” and “our heart is glad.”

Final Observations

This psalm is ultimate a praise to YHWH for his faithful care and a call for the righteous to hope in him. It arises out of a heart that has experienced God’s gracious forgiveness for sin and rebellion.

Hamilton, J. M., Jr. (2021). Psalms (T. D. Alexander, T. R. Schreiner, & A. J. Köstenberger, Eds.; Vol. 1, p. 370). Lexham Academic. ↩

A Glorious Crutch

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0000

A sleepless night, I lie awake
Still no ending to the worst of days
I pray for peace in my troubled heart
For anxieties and fears to fall apart

In the light of your glory, all else fades
These fears and troubles, all pass away
I know the darkness will lift, the light will shine
Because you are the God of peace, and you are mine

Until rest comes, I will praise your name
It is worthy of honor and glory and fame
I know my Lord has endure much worse than this
For our sinful souls he took on the abyss

Although rest may tarry, my hope will not fade
The God of heaven and earth and all that’s been made
Will sustain me and keep me without fear to the end
Christ ever intercedes and calls me his friend.

The Stone and the Cup

Sun, 17 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Listen: The Stone and the Cup

Your browser does not support the audio element.

On Easter Sunday so long ago,
Something happened, as the story is told.
A failed Messiah, bruised and stricken dead.
Hailed as a liar, as all disciples fled.
Lying still in a grave over Sabbath’s rest,
Those who once hoped in him are now hopeless.
“How could they kill one who came to save?
How could our King be conquered by the grave?
Death, that great enemy, still reigns supreme.
Life, or so we thought, gone to the world beyond dreams.”
Can God make a stone so big he can’t lift it?
So the philosophers ask, their meaning implicit.
God himself weighed in on the question that day,
Absurd it may seem, but the answer’s yes, in a way.
For the one sealed in the stone tomb was himself stone maker,
And the dead one wrote life for every life taker.
You see, it wasn’t just a man as criminal they buried,
And it wasn’t for his own sins that cross he carried.
The great cup of God’s wrath, under which humanity sank,
He took upon his own lips, and all of it he drank.
The powers that ruled put him down out of fear
That he was the one, that their time had drawn near.
But the very evil they planned, God planned for good.
Because that day, this day, in the place where death stood,
The stone God made, so heavy it will never be moved,
Rose from the grave and kicked the rock from the tomb.
This stone, in fact, sits as a firm foundation,
The cornerstone, indeed, of God’s new creation.
Death’s finest hour was its last hurrah
And Easter Sunday brought a new hallelujah.
The Lamb who was slain, conquered sin and death as a Lion,
Inviting all who desire to be named in the new Zion,
To come and drink from the cup of God’s wrath now poured,
Now filled with the new wine of salvation assured.
For the one who walked alive out of the stone cold grave,
Promises the same life to those who follow him that way.
If we walk with him, we too may pass through death,
But the promise of Easter is that we too will have new breath.
So come to the table all who hunger and thirst,
And feast with the joy that has been prepared from the first.

Genesis 41-42

Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:35:00 +0000

Summary Outline

41:1-14 -> Pharoah has a dream, sends for Joseph
41:15-40 -> Joseph interprets Pharoah’s dream and is promoted
41:41-57 -> Joseph in charge of Egypt, and builds a family
42:1-26 -> The brothers’ first visit to Egypt
42:27-38 -> The brothers return to Jacob, ask for Benjamin

41:1-14 – Pharoah’s Dream

Joseph stays in the pit (prison) 2 more years after the incident with the cupbearer
Notice the patten of twos throughout the whole account – in this chapter and also in the dreams throughout the Joseph narrative.

What is the significance of this? “The matter has been fully decided by God…”

Joseph’s understanding of the reason for the doubling of the dream can’t help but bring to mind Joseph’s own earlier double dream.

None of the wise men of Egypt can help. Like Moses later in the Pentateuch, we see Joseph is enabled to do what Pharoah’s magicians cannot.
Insights:
- If the cupbearer has kept his promise to Joseph, it may have amounted to nothing at the time, or Joseph may have even been freed, but either way he very likely would not have been available for this moment.
- The language of the pit is intentional here. Joseph’s brothers betrayed him into a pit and it is an Egyptian king who delivers him out of it.
- After a long wait where it appears that faithfulness means nothing, suddenly it becomes clear that God is at work in this very thing. Have you faced situations in your life where God’s timetable has differed from your own?

41:15-40 – Joseph’s Exaltation

Another repetition of Pharoah’s dreams
Joseph gives the interpretation and warns of the upcoming famine
Joseph’s wisdom gives Pharoah a plan to follow
Joseph is exalted to the second in command over all of Egypt
Insights:
- The fact that what was going to happen was “determined by God” did not lead to complacency or a sense of fatalism (que sera sera), but it led to determined action in light of the certainty.

How should our confidence in God’s promises and his sovereignty spur us to action?

Even the pagan king recognizes that practical wisdom is a divine gift. c.f. Ex. 31:3 – The skill given to Bezalel to adorn the tabernacle is attributed to the Spirit of God as well.

How often do we rightly recognize practical skill as a gift of God?

Notice how Joseph defers to God and not to his own wisdom. During the retelling of the dream, the words “good” and “evil” are repeated over and over. In this story, Joseph is presented as being able to discern between good and evil, but only by the knowledge that comes from God. This is true wisdom. This draws us back to the Genesis 3 where the desire was to obtain the knowledge of good and evil apart from God, and here we see a reversal of that.
There is a great reversal here where Joseph, suffering patiently and serving faithfully in his humility, is exalted above all others in due time. This is a biblical pattern we find often repeated, for example in David, Daniel, Mordecai, and culminating in Jesus (Philippians 2:6-11). This whole account is also a living witness to us of the encouragement of 1 Peter 5:6 – “Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s might hand, that he may lift you up in due time.”

41:41-57 - Joseph, Ruler of Egypt

Joseph is “set over all the land of Egypt…”
After 13 years in servitude, God has blessed him richly and given him a role that will bring blessing to many. He is in a position to save not only Egypt but the whole world from famine. The echoes of the covenant blessing ring loud here.
His two sons:
- Manassah – Forgotten hardship
- Ephraim – Fruitful in affliction
Insights:
- How does Joseph carry forward the expectation Genesis has been building of what is to come in God’s unfolding plan?
  - In addition to the covenant blessing, Joseph is an initial fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and Jacob that from their offspring would arise kings (17:6; 17:16; 35:11). Looking ahead, though the royal line is carried forward in Judah, it is portrayed in terms that force us to look back to Joseph as the kind of king who would come. Gen. 49:8 – “your father’s sons will bow down to you.” Sailhamer: “It is difficult not to see in this statement an intentional allusion to the dream of Joseph (37:10) in which his father’s sons would come to bow down before him. In other words, that which was to happen to Joseph, and did happen in the course of the narrative, has been picked up by way of this image and transferred to the future of the how of Judah. That which happened to Joseph is portrayed as a picture of that which would happen to Judah “in the last days.” (49:1).
- In a sense, Joseph is portrayed as an Adam figure who rules rightly from the wisdom that God provides. As scripture unfolds, the language points us to Joseph as an ideal king:
  - Psalm 72:16 – “May there be abundance of grain in the land”
  - Isa 11:2 – “And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.”
- As one commentator notes, it is “a reflection of what might have been, and anticipation of what still yet may be.” Joseph is a picture of the king who will come from Judah.

42:1-26 - Joseph’s brothers seek help

In Chapter 41, Joseph’s assimilation into Egyptian culture is made explicit – shaven, Egyptian clothes, Egyptian name, Egyptian wife. Many of the words used in that section are actually loan words from ancient Egyptian – Nile, reeds, magicians, fine linen, “make way”. All of this sets up the fact that Joseph would have become unrecognizable to his brothers.
Once again, Jacob’s family is threatened with destruction – previously via assimilation at Shechem, and now through famine.
What do we make of Joseph’s testing of his brothers? Is he attempting to see if there is contrition for what they did to him?
- At a minimum he’s trying to get all of the brothers together at once. It does seem that he’s already forgiven them.
- V.21 Seems like the first time they’ve really come face to face with their evil actions
- “You are spies…” – I wonder if Joseph’s brothers ever accused him of being a spy for their father.
- V.6 We see Joseph’s first dream fulfilled. Only 10/11 brothers are there, but Joseph’s his first dream had his brothers bowing down to him and left the number unclear. However, his second had his father and mother and explicitly 11 brothers as well.
Interesting parallels with Ch. 37-38: “Members of Jacob’s clan go to Egypt, are unjustly accused of a crime they did not commit, one (Simeon) is imprisoned under false pretenses, several of the brothers acquire silver after consigning a brother to live in Egypt, the (supposed) eldest living son of Rachel is forced to go to Egypt, and Jacob is made to grieve over Rachel’s son.”¹
The requirement for Simeon to stay back sets his brothers up for a decision – will they again sacrifice one brother in exchange for money, or will they in fact return and keep their word?
Other insights:
- The need and potential for brotherly reconciliation, compare w/ Cain/Abel | Isaac/Ishmael | Jacob/Esau

42:27-38 - Returning for Benjamin

Does Jacob suspect his sons of mischief regarding Joseph? V.36 seems to read that way.
- Simeon is no more brings an implicit accusation that they sold their brother for food just as happened with Joseph.
At the end we see Reuben again try to assert himself on behalf of his brother, but unsuccessfully. What do you make of his offer?
This chapter ends with Jacob displaying very little in the way of hope – he is at the point of near total despair. God’s promises and covenant hang out there but there does not appear to be a fulfillment in sight. As readers of the story, we know this is not the case. What encouragement can’t be drawn here?

Other Thoughts

Joseph is portrayed as a good leader and a partial fulfillment of the expectations of Genesis, but consider some possible ways that Joseph falls short of being an ultimate blessing to the nations:
- While his family receives freely from the stored grain, it is sold back to the people it was collected from.
- Overall, it is a somewhat oppressive arrangement that results in all of Egypt being handed over to Pharoah and serfdom for the people.

Contrast this with the true and better Joseph who abounds in unmerited blessing without cost to all of the nations.

Bergen, R. D. (2017). Genesis. In E. A. Blum & T. Wax (Eds.), CSB Study Bible: Notes (p. 71). Holman Bible Publishers. ↩

Peace and Joy in Hand

Fri, 24 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Listen: Peace and Joy in Hand

Your browser does not support the audio element.

(to the tune of Winter Wonderland)

Angel’s sing, can you hear them?
Hope has come, drawing near to him
A beautiful sight, bathed in moonlight
Christ has come with peace and joy in hand

Lay away the things that you’ve heard
Here today he brings the true word
Creator’s love song, he’s righting all wrongs
Christ has come with peace and joy in hand

In the darkness we could hope in no man
But our Savior’s turning things around
On the cross he carried, not his, but our sin
That in the end the lost would now be found

Later on, our desires,
Purified, as by fire,
Can face unafraid, that great judgment day
Christ has come with peace and joy in hand

In the darkness we could hope in no man
But our king has turned it all around
From the grave he rose to glory’s right hand
And no power of hell can keep him down

The gospel news of salvation,
Will now prove all the nations
Let’s hope and let’s pray, the glorious day
Christ will come with peace and joy in hand
Christ will come with peace and joy in hand
Christ will come with peace and joy in hand

Forty Verses (birthday poem)

Sat, 20 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0000

(for my wife on her 40th birthday)

1 wink is all it took to start down the road
2 dates and both of us had to already know
3 months and I was planning to move
4 seasons later we’re in the wedding groove
5 is the month when we said “I do”
6 and onward is “Us” instead of “Me” and “You”
7 is perfection, to which you’re close enough for me
8 is the year of decision to have our first baby
9 months spent trying to hurry up and wait
10 came with a bang and very little sleep
11 different ways to get this baby not to weep
12 pumps of the legs and turns out it’s just gas
13 is unlucky, at least that’s what I hear
14 came quick, 3 Kids, second house, new van, new job, all in a year
15 and a teenager but still up for an egg hunt ;-)
16 brought us tears, at least a first installment
17 times we tell them to go to bed
18 is how many you repeat what you said
19 kids and counting, what went through their minds?
20 is halfway for you, the start of your climb
21 and you can drink, and also turn forty
22 ounces of breastmilk, these kids sure eat, Lordy!
23 minutes late to get to piano
24 started out as a pretty good show
25 years young and both of us were in
26 dresses less than Miss Kathryn
27 degrees celsius on Sunset Point in San DIego
28 times you asked, “can we please go?”
29 and half of our kids will be grown
30 was a decade ago, don’t you see (groan)
31 days in a month to fill with love and laughter
32 is their ages added one and another after
33 is the real number, just testing your math
34 was your age when ‘14 crossed our path
35 “I love you”s wouldn’t be enought
36 months of pregnancy is pretty rough
37 degrees celsius is the normal body heat
38 is mine whenever the two of us meet
39 brought adventure into our story
40 years of joy, to God be the glory
Every second is a milestone,
every day a victory
While the weeks fly by,
sometime months are history
We commemorate the years,
and together remember tears
But when all is said and done,
all of this life, the sad and the fun,
Is a beath in light of eternity,And all the joy that it will bring
We embrace it as we embrace each other
Our love a profound glimpse into that of another
I love you and am glad you’re forty and fine,
And remember, for six more months I’ll be 39!

Jesus is My Hope

Sat, 15 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0000

Listen: Jesus is My Hope

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Since Jesus is my hope,
I won’t be put to shame.
On him I can rely,
And holy is his name.

The storms of life do rage,
And threaten with despair,
But the tiger has no teeth,
While the lion lamb is there.

Since the world began they say,
We’ve progressed and come along.
There was no fall of man
Looking back is all wrong.

Look ahead and see the triumph
Of man in a world of night.
Our prowess, our will our way,
Mind and might we find our light.

Forget the days of yore,
When people were ill treated,
Today we have arrived
And history has been defeated.

Yet since the fall of man,
The goal has been the same.
Man is the measure of it all,
And holy is his name.

It’s a Song as old as time
But we dressed it in a robe
If you don’t follow you’re blind
And a danger to our hope.

And yet a hope that dies
Is really no hope at all
Unless that hope can rise
And overcome the fall

Thu, 13 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0000

Listen: Twice as Hard

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Walking through town in the dead of the night
See the buildings rise to such a great height
Where does it get us, all the toil and strife
What is the world we’ve bought?
Peace and joy - or for naught?

Day after Christmas overflows with toys
Cell phones, TVs, Legos and lots of noise
Through the chaos, what is missing is joy
Not just something to do,
but something deep and true

We feed the beast to put smiles on faces
What they need is to learn to be gracious
Instead they burn as they run rat races
Better to give than get
May have some wisdom yet

What’s the answer, I can’t pretend to know
But what I’m seeing ain’t a pretty show
Hoping and praying that they learn and grow
But what are we teaching?
And who are we reaching?

O Christmas Tree (Remix)

Thu, 13 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0000

Listen: Christmas Tree Remix

Your browser does not support the audio element.

(to the tune of O Tannenbaum)
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
Why do we sing a song to you?
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
Why do we sing a song to you?
You are a creature of the King
And to him alone we should sing
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
Why do we sing a song to you?

O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
Your branches can’t hide his glory
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
Your branches can’t hide his glory
We celebrate because of him
Who came to rid the world of sin
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
Your branches can’t hide his glory

O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
Sing with us and all creation
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
Sing with us and all creation
The one who brings us all good things
Has brought us life and hope and peace
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
Sing with us and all creation

Sappy Love Poem

Thu, 13 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0000

the way she smiles
the way she laughs
the way she mocks
the way she loves
there’s so much more to her
than what may meet the eye
it’s no wonder to me
that we don’t have to try
like when every day
is a valentine’s day
or the first date jitters
never really show up
or the crush as kidders
but you never grow up
poetry about love
can be a bit sappy
but what’s a guy to do
when he’s just so happy
she is a good dream
and don’t want to wake up
even if it does take
a long time for makeup
but since love is patient
I know I can be too
a story more ancient
than “violets are blue”
it is love that we share
given from God on high
it is he who first cared
and is the reason why
so as living mirrors
of that great gift to men
each year we grow nearer
to each other and him

Quotes from The Intellectual Life

Sun, 19 May 2019 00:00:00 +0000

A vocation is not fulfilled by vague reading and a few scattered writings.

This little hundred year old book by a French Dominican priest and Catholic philosopher is so rich with wisdom and insight for any who value intellectual endeavors as a part of their life, even in their calling isn’t necessarily to a life of study and writing. There is much here to challenge, convict, and improve you.

Preface

The Intellection Vocation I. The Intellectual has a sacred call II. The Intellectual does not stand alone III. The Intellual belongs to his time
Virtues of a Catholic Intellectual I. The Common Virtues II. The Virtue Proper to the Intellectual III. The Spirit of Prayer IV. The discipline of the Body
The Organization of Life I. Simplication II. Solitude III. Cooperation with ones fellows IV. Cultivation of necessary contacts V. Safeguarding the necessary element of action VI. Preservation of Interior Silence
The Time of Work I. Continuity of Work II. The Word of Night III. Mornings and Evenings IV. Moments of Plentitude
The Field of Work I. Comparative Study II. Thomism, the ideal framework for knowledge III. Our Specialty IV. Necessary Sacrifices
The Spirit of Work I. Ardor in Research II. Concentration III. Submission to Truth IV. Breadth of Outlook V. The Sense of Mystery
Preparation for Work A. Reading I. Not Reading Much II. Choosing Well III. Four Kinds of Reading IV. Contact with Writers of Genius V. Reconciling instead of accenting opposites VI. Assimilating and living by ones reading B. The Management of Memory I. What things are to be remembered II. In what order they are to be remembered III. How they can be remembered C. Notes I. How to take Notes II. How to classify Notes III. How to use one’s Notes
Creative Work I. Writing II. Detachment from self and the world III. Constancy, patience, and perseverance IV. Doing things well and finishing everything V. Attempting Nothing beyond one’s powers
The Worker and the Man I. Keeping Contact with Life II. Knowing how to relax III. Accepting our trials IV. Appreciating our joys V. Looking forward to the fruits

Preface

Do you want to do intellectual work? Begin by creating within you a zone of silence, a habit of recollection, a will to renunciation, and detachment which puts you entirely at the disposal of the work; acquire that state of sould unburdened by desire and self-will which is the state of grace to the intellectual worker. Without that you will do nothing, at least nothing worthwhile. (vii)

Better as the enemy of good:

It sometimes happens that by widening the field of one’s research one impairs it; and it sometimes happens that investigating beyond some advisable limit, the mind loses its clearness and ends by being merely perpexed. (xxvi)

1.I The Intellectual has a sacred call

A vocation is not fulfilled by vague reading and a few scattered writings. It requires penetration and continuity and methodical effort, so as to attain a fulness of development which will correspond to the call of the Spirit, and to the resources it has pleased him to bestow on us. (3)

To get something without paying for it is the universal desire; bit it is the desire of cowardly hearts and weak brains. The universe does not response murmured request, and the light of God does shine under your study lamp unless your soul asks for it with persistent effort. (6)

Consider the possibility that constrains on your time and other obligations may serve to focus your use of the time you do have and result in greater long-term productivity. (9)

1.II The Intellectual does not stand alone

The end goal of our studies should be application.

Work always then with the idea of some utilization, as the Gospel speaks. Listen to the murmur of the human race all about you; pick our certain individual of certain groups whose need you know, find out what may bring them our of their night and enoble them; what in any measure may save them. (13)

2.I The Common Virtues

Obedience leads to greater understanding.

2.II The Virtue Proper to the Intellectual

A country priest who devotes himself to his parishioners, a doctor who turns away from study to give help to urgent cases, a young man of good family who adopts a calling to help his people and in doing so has to turn his back on liberal studies, are not profaning the gift that is in them, they are paying homage to the True whcih is one and the same Being with the Good. (26) (c.f. Tolkien’s essay “Leaf by Niggle”)

The wise man begins at the beginning, and does not take a second stop until he has made sure of the first. That is why self-taught men have so many weak points. They cannot, all by themselves, begin at the beginning. (27)

Study carried to such a point that we give up prayer and recollection, that we cease to read Holy Scripture, and the words of the saints and of great souls - study carried to the point of forgetting ourselves entirely, and of concentrating on the objects of study so that we neglect the Divine Dweller within us, is an abuse and a fool’s game. (29)

2.IV The discipline of the Body

Look after your diet. Light food, plain, moderate in quantity and simply cooked, will enable you to work more freely and alertly. A thinker does not spend his life in the process of digestion. (38)

3.I Simplication

Money and attention squandered on trifles would be much better spend in collecting a library, providing for instructive travel or restful holidays, going to hear music which rekindles inspiration and so on. (43)

3.II Solitude

do not run after news that occupies the mind to no purpose; do not busy yourself with the sayings and doings of the world, that is with such as have no moral or intellectual bearing; avoid useless comings and goings which waste hours and fill the mind with wandering thought. (47)

This is the Spirit of the age in a nutshell. c.f. “Amusing ourselves to death.”

3.IV Cultivation of necessary contacts

Too much solitude would impoverish you. Someone wrote recently: “The difficulty of novel writers nowadays seems to be this: if they do not go into society their books are unreadable, and if they do, they have no time to write.” That is the tormenting question of wise measure that we meet everywhere! (59)

3.V Safeguarding the necessary element of action

To speak for the sake of what must be said, to express a timely feeling or a useful idea and then to be silent, is the secret of keeping possession of yourself while giving something to others, instead of letting your torch go out as it lights other torches. (61)

Therefore, if there are not already any demands on you, look for causes that will inspire you because they are worthwhile - movements that make for light, rehabilitation, preservation, progress; leagues for the public good, societies for defense of right and for social action, all such enterprises as demand of their man, if not his whole life, at least his whole self. Devote yourself to some such work in the moments when inspiration grants you, and even imposes on you, a leave of absence that will be to her own advantage.(66)

When you don’t have something to write, engage in some useful cause, which will both serve others and provoke further inspiration.

4.I Continuity of Work

Learn to listen; and listen, first, to anyone… A multitude of truths arise out of the simplest conversations. The least word listened to with attention may be an oracle. A peasant at certain moments is much wiser than a philosopher. (74)

(consider this Art of Manliness episode interviewing the author of A Curious Mind on his own experiences in this very subject)

4.IV Moments of Plentitude

Do something, or do nothing at all. Do ardently whatever you decided to do; do it with your might; and let the whole of your activity be as series of fresh starts. Half-work, which is half-rest, is good neither for rest nor for work. (96)

5.I Comparative Study

Keep your study diverse:

It is not wise, it is not fruitful, even if one has a very clearly limited special subjet, to shut oneself up in it forthwith. That is putting on blinkers. No branch of knowledge is self-sufficiency; no disciples looked at by itself alone gives light enough for its own paths. (102)

The author encourages pursuing Thomas’ Summa as a worthy theological pursuit. Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics is probably the closest thing in print to the Summa for Protestants. Maybe Calvin’s Institutes as well. The scholastics might be too much. (112-113)

5.IV Necessary Sacrifices

Everything is interesting; everything might be useful; everything attracts and charms a noble mind; but death is before us; mind and matter make their demands; willy-nilly we must submit and rest content as to the things that time and wisdom deny us, with a glance of sympathy that is another act of homage to the truth. Do not be ashamed not to know what you could only know at the cost of scattering your attention. Be humble about it, yes, for it shows our limitations; but to accept our limitations is a part of virtue and gives us a great dignity, that of the man who lives according to his law and plays his part. (121)

This is an important truth but a difficult one to accept for someone who loves learning broadly and has not encountered a domain of knowledge that would not be interesting to pursue.

6.II Concentration

Speaking of different occupations and pursuits:

When the turn of one comes, we must put the other aside, setup a system of watertight compartments, work intensively at the part we are engaged on and not change to another until afterwords. Doing a bit here and a bit there is never any good. (128)

In other words, no multitasking.

6.III Submission to Truth

What matters in an idea is not its origin but its magnitude; What is interesting in genius itself is not the person: neither Aristotle, nore Leibnitz, nor Bossuet, nor Pascal, but the truth. The more precious an idea is the less it matters where it comes from. Train yourself to indifference about sources.

Hence the value of a book on intellect from a Roman Catholic Priest.

6.IV Breadth of Outlook

Balance the study of the trees with a view of its place in the forest. (138)

7.A.I Not Reading Much

What we are proscribing is the passion for reading, the uncontrolled habit, the poisoning of the mind by excess of mental food, the laziness in disguise which prefers easy familiarity with others’ thought to personal effort. It is only by rowing oneself that one goes forward, and no current can take you to the point you aim at reaching. (146)

This is an ever present burden for me.

7.A.V Reconciling instead of accenting opposites

You who seek truth and are ready to recognize its countenance everywhere, do not set its servants up one against another, even though they should be among those “incomplete angels,” men of genius whom truth has visited without making its dwelling-place with them.

Do not be a wagon circler.

7.B.I What things are to be remembered

What each one must try to keep in the forefront of his mind and available at a moment’s need is what forms the basis of his work, what for that reason all the eminent men in his calling knew. (177)

7.B.III How they can be remembered

So when you want to remember, notice the connections and the reason of things; analyze them, look for the why and wherefore; observe the geneology of happening, their order of successes and their dependent consequences; imitate the procedure of mathematics in which necessity starts from the axiom and arrives at the most distant conclusions. Fully to understand a thing, then to learn and to introduce into one’s mind not fragments, not loose links, but a chain, is to make sure of the sticking quality of the whole. Union is strength. (182)

7.C.I How to take Notes

Even if a thing is all very well in its own way, even if it is valuable in theory, that is not a reason for transcribing it. (189)

8.II Detachment from self and the world

We must not allow ourselves to be influenced by fear of what people will say; we must beware of yielding to the pressure of a spirit of cowardly conformity which proclaims itself everybody’s friend in the hope that everybody will obligingly return the compliment. (213)

8.III Constancy, patience, and perseverance

As a Christian, you must respect God in his Providence. It is He who lays down the conditions of knowledge; impatience is a revolt against him. When feverish excitement takes hold of you, spiritual slavery is close at hand, interior liberty vanishes. It is not now you yourself who act, still less Christ in you. You are no longer doing the work of the Word. (225)

8.V Attempting Nothing beyond one’s powers

Success in every order is always attained on the same conditions: to reflect at the start, to begin at the beginning, to proceed methodically, to advance slowly, to give our all one’s strength. But the first object of initial reflection is to decide what we are fit for. The “know thyself” of Socrates is not only the key to morality, but to every vocation, since to be called to something is to see our individual path marked out along the wide human road. (233)

9.I Keeping Contact with Life

You, therefore, who intend to devote yourself to the vocation of study, beware of turning your back for its sake on the rest of life. Give up nothing of what belongs to man. Preserve a balance in which the dominant weight does not try to carry all of the rest with it. Learn to defend a thesis and to look at a sunrise, to bury yourself in profound abstractions and to play, like the Divine Master, with children. (240)

Mother's Day

Tue, 07 May 2019 00:00:00 +0000

Tears of sadness, tears of joy.
So many girls! “Are you trying for a boy?”
Vacations feel like a day at work.
Thank you’s look a lot like smirks.
Lots of whining, lots of diapers,
Someone’s yelling, can you wipe her?
Trying to teach, but getting groans,
Trying to reach them through the moans.
Life as a mother is often hard
But the point of this day (and this card)
Is to remind you of what you know –
That in their eyes you walk with a glow.
An angel from God who guides their life,
The one whose heart defeats all strife.
Every day, no matter how bad they’ve made it,
Be assured, you are appreciated!
I wish you a Happy Mother’s Day –
Truly you’re awesome in every way.

Come Behold Him

Mon, 24 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0000

Listen: Come, Behold Him

Your browser does not support the audio element.

(to the tune of Little Drummer Boy)

Come behold him
Pa rum pum pum-pum
The king in Bethlehem
Pa rum pum pum-pum
Him who the angels sing
Pa rum pum pum-pum
Him who salvation brings
Pa rum pum pum-pum
Rum pum pum-pum
Rum pum pum-pum
The Son of David
Pa rum pum pum-pum
He has come

Prophets told us
Pa rum pum pum-pum
Lion and Lamb he’ll be
Pa rum pum pum-pum
His death brings life to us
Pa rum pum pum-pum
And we’ll have righteousness
Pa rum pum pum-pum
Rum pum pum-pum
Rum pum pum-pum
God in human flesh
Pa rum pum pum-pum
He has come

Christ is risen
Pa rum pum pum-pum
Conquering death and sin
Pa rum pum pum-pum
Salvation to all men
Pa rum pum pum pum
To all who worship him
Pa rum pum pum-pum
Rum pum pum-pum
Rum pum pum-pum
Glory, honor, praise
Pa rum pum pum-pum
He has come

He ascended
Pa rum pum pum-pum
To sit at God’s right hand
Pa rum pum pum-pum
The angels worship him
Pa rum pum pum-pum
The Lion and the Lamb
Pa rum pum pum-pum
Rum pum pum-pum
Rum pum pum-pum
All creation sings
Pa rum pum pum-pum
When he comes

Some Thoughts on Pilgrim's Progress

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:35:00 +0000

Saying anything about a book like Pilgrim’s Progress is intimidating to say the least. Knowing that up until the current century (looking at you Harry Potter!) this book was 2nd only to the Bible in number of copies sold is enough to tell me that it is as close to a “must-read” as you can get. Nonetheless, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of my peers have not read the book, if they’ve even heard of it. Renown certainly doesn’t make a book great, but it should give you pause when something has been so received over so many centuries by the “Christian” world. There are bestsellers from a generation ago that have been left on the dustbins of history, but like any other classic, Pilgrim’s Progress remains deserving of attention.

But why? Why should a 350 year old book get any attention at all? And why one that is a relatively surface allegory of the Christian life, with imagery so obvious that you would have to be ignorant of the faith to not catch the illusions? For me the answer is - because it’s true. It captures in its heart the shared experience of billions of Christians over the centuries. When I read Christian’s journey, I see my own and it holds true. It also brings me hope as he approaches the destination and the the comfort of the Savior that I am headed in the same direction.

If I had to quibble with an undeniable legend, the one thing would be that throughout the story Christian is fighting to continue on in the journey - sometimes on his own and sometimes with the aid of a friend - but the whole time it feels as if he is so distant from the one who saved him and is drawing him home. Now, I understand that providence is at work and Christian will in fact make it, but there are times where there feels like a chasm between the Lord and Christian.

And maybe that’s just it - feels - which does hold true. There is no chasm. The Lord is near. We are not walking this journey alone, but we have the one who saved us going before us, walking with us, and serving as our rear guard. As the saying goes, “The Lord before me, the Lord beside me, the Lord behind me.” However, there is no denying that we often experience life in a way that feels like we are fighting to stay on the course, and the Lord feels quite distant. We have not lost hope and we do not doubt that he is our good sovereign, but are fighting nonetheless. The reminder we constantly need is that we are not alone, but he has sent a Helper, who dwells within us and guides. The Holy Spirit is Christ within us, bringing us along until we reach the City of God and behold our king face to face.

Reflections on Middlemarch

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:35:00 +0000

What to say about this book? It is long, and for a while it truly felt long. I would say for the first 1/3 of the book, I was only mildly engaged and wondering where this was going. By the half-way point I was hooked into the story and waiting to see where things went, and about 3/4 in I was completely invested and not only wanted to know but was cheering a specific outcome. This was my first taste of George Eliot. Her style was a mix of narrative combined with insight into the psychology of the characters, sometimes ironically in-person and sometimes omnisciently telling us underlying motives the characters themselves were ignorant of.

The portrayal of religion is generally negative throughout the book, and the hypocrisy of most is apparent. The most outwardly religious of characters is the ultimate villain of the story, the weakest willed, and the most truly unrepentant. Edward Casaubin’s life’s work is a meaningless exploration into some arcane topic which, to add salt to the wound, appears to be mistaken anyway. However, her negativity serves a subversive end of portraying a world where God’s providence is at work and the heroine of the story (and our lives) is the quiet and devoted servant of the Lord, who’s view of herself is low and deferential to others and shows genuine concern for their welfare. Her humility is not weakness, however. She has a complete sense of herself and of justice and cares not about what others think of her as long as she is not bringing undue pain. Additionally, through circumstance and human action, sin is exposed and justice is served on numerous occasions. While Bulstrode’s self-serving prayers may go up in smoke, this is not a portrayal of a godless world of secular humanism. Through the course of events, it very much feels like the Sovereign is at work, though not we’re always clear on the details.

There is a cynicism throughout the book that can best be described as “Hevel” in the Ecclesiastes sense of the world. Efforts are frustrated at every turn, the perception of the populace is rarely consistent with the reality of the situation, and it’s rarely that magnanimity trumps selfish concern. However, there is hope (and in this sense the book, despite its faults, is true) to be be found in a life lived for the love of neighbor out of love for God. It is through this rather than through the machinations of history where meaning is found and lives are truly impacted. Reform on a grand scale is needed and beneficial, though often short-lived. But the impact of mercy and service to the good of others can have repercussions into eternity.

Eliot has a keen sense into the way we often deceive ourselves in an attempt to live self-justified while engaged in things that are best called unjustifiable. The inner psychologist opens a door to our own hearts and if heard reflectively can have a sanctifying affect towards genuineness and congruity between our actions, our beliefs, and our true motives. Knowledge of the real possibility of self-deception is a sin qua non of identifying and avoiding it.

During much of the book, marriage feels like a prison more than anything. Most of the characters are unhappy in theirs in one way or another, or have just learned to get along with each other without the love. The exception may be Sir James and Celia, who seem to have a healthy relationship. Perhaps it’s the one-sided marriages that she comes down most harshly on. For a while, I thought it was more of a feminist portrayal - the men all selfish and ill-advised, the women the one’s who had a true sense of things but were under the oppression of their husbands. That remained to some extent, but the exposing of Rosamond’s vapidity and the portrayal of Lydgate and Sir James seems to arrest that feeling towards the end of the book. At the end, Will and Dorothea do live a happy life, as do (albeit in a more of a compromised manner) the Lydgates.

The other theme to consider is suffering - in particular that of Dorothea’s. It is through the fire of her first trial of marriage, and her faithfulness to the end, that developed the character in her and gave her the perspective from which she could so clearly see how it is she must act towards Mrs. Lydgate at the climax of the story. Certainly, she was the most respectable from the beginning, but the deep wisdom of her later thoughts and actions are portrayed as someone who has been through the crucible.

Overall, it’s a captivating story with several lines that are weaved together nicely. Having walked the journey (and felt the inner turmoil) with the characters and particularly with Dorothea, the last paragraph left me near tears with the emotion welling up within. While the author bemoans the changing social conditions which result in the stifling of flowering feminine heroism, I see here an insight into the truly sublime nature of the upside-down way the world works.

“Certainly those determining acts of her life were not ideally beautiful. They were the mixed result of young and noble impulse struggling amidst the conditions of an imperfect social state, in which great feelings will often take the aspect of error, and great faith the aspect of illusion. For there is no creature whose inward being is so strong that it is not greatly determined by what lies outside it. A new Theresa will hardly have the opportunity of reforming a conventual life, any more than a new Antigone will spend her heroic piety in daring all for the sake of a brother’s burial: the medium in which their ardent deeds took shape is forever gone. But we insignificant people with our daily words and acts are preparing the lives of many Dorotheas, some of which may present a far sadder sacrifice than that of the Dorothea whose story we know.

“Her finely touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.”

Now, I’m certain that Mary Ann Evans would not appreciate her work being read in such an overtly evangelical and orthodox light. But let’s face it, we do deceive ourselves and there are hypocrites in the church. However, sins are exposed and justice is done, and the fruit issuing from a soul who serves the God of heaven brings the greatest impact to the world. Maybe Dorothea’s religion was not orthodox, that I can’t say. Otherwise, I would say Eliot cannot escape her Christian past and still leans on that faith to provide any kind of grounding for her morality.

Non-Review of Don Quixote

Sun, 05 Nov 2017 13:35:00 +0000

It’s impossible to review such a towering work of literatures, so I’ll just share some opinions.

What Did I like?

It really is a funny book. The translation I read from captured some of the subtlety of the humor to give a similar effect as those who would have read it natively. The book did not take itself too seriously, but the humor was sharp at the same time. Some of the vignettes were enjoyable stories in their own right, even though the whole project is making a mockery of the genre of chivalry. You can’t help but be sympathetic with Don Quixote, given his madness and the way he is treated by his “friends.” On the other hand, he wasn’t exactly nice himself, and could speak down to others on a fair occasion.

What Did I not Like?

It was quite a long read. This is a generational problem, if I had to guess. The unanimous place this book holds in great book lists would confirm that any issue working through this is probably caused by the distraction-induced ADHD of our generation. It’s incredible, but true. The other thing is that this is actually two volumes combined into one, so the first readers would have had a decade gap between them. Regardless of the reason, as I got near the end I was just wanted to finish and find out how it all wraps up. Many of the motifs felt like they were becoming repetitive. Plus, Sancho started to become mean as he lost faith in his master’s ability to deliver on the promises.

ABCs of Character

Sun, 05 Nov 2017 13:35:00 +0000

Ambition
Bravery
Curiosity
Devotion
Etiquette
Friendliness
Generosity
Hospitality
Independence
Joy
Kindness
Love
Mercifulness
Nurturing
Open mindedness
Patience
Quietude
Respectfulness
Single mindedness
Truthfulness
Understanding
Vocation
Worshipful
Exuberance
Youthfulness
Zestful

McCarthy, Disestablishment a Second Time

Sun, 10 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0000

Are we to be or not to be religious
A question posed by institutions prodigious
But a false one to ask, no matter the claim
Neutrality is impossible, they all face the same
Dilemma in deciding which viewpoint to teach
Enlightenment rationalism has a sermon to preach
Thomas Jefferson’s hope, enshrined in law
A rationalist pope bringing education for all
A future which can bring uniformity of thought
A civic utopia and true peace will be brought
But reality disagrees and humans are varied
Distinct in the cultural beliefs they will carry
A truly just system allows for this diversity
A life lived honestly is not just for university
Justice must reside at the core of the system
From funding, to rules, to no thought-police victims.

This old book makes an important and coherent argument that is relevant not only to public education but to so much of civic life in our increasingly fractured and polarized society. A simply majority, winner takes all, approach is incompatible with a just pluralism and apart from recognizing that and acting accordingly, conflict is inevitable.

Introduction

The fundamental premise of the current public school structure is that the state has a right and duty to ensure civic and social uniformity through education, including instilling its own vision of proper morality and justice.

Chapter 1

The historical situation shows that establishment of religion and education go hand in hand, and that it’s not possible to effectively have one without the other, and this is a key component used to ensure social unity.

Chapter 2

Thomas Jefferson’s religion was none other than enlightenment rationalism. He viewed this as the core good that was found in common among the major religions proper, and it was these sets of moral and utilitarian beliefs that he thought should be taught and promoted in civic life.

Chapter 3

Jefferson’s view of autonomous individuals left no room to formulate a positive function of the state. His view of humanity failed to account for genuine social diversity and strong conflicting loyalties. Jefferson’s philosophy of the republic was his religion, and he needed to protect it at all cost. Jefferson did not impose his beliefs on other individuals, but he did impose them on the structure of American civil government. This forces those of genuine religious conviction into either dualism or hypocritical living. Jefferson’s education scheme was adopted from John Knox’s plan for Christian education in a Christian state. Ben Franklin and Ben Rush were likeminded in seeking homogeneity. Under the guise of religious freedom there is established Jeffersonian religion.

Chapter 4

On the institutionalizing of a non-sectarian, though generally Protestant, publicly run school system. Began in Massachusetts and NY, spreading to others over time. The House Committee on Education opposed to the process wrote:

Undoubtedly, common schools may be used as a potent means of engrafting into the minds of children, political, religious and moral opinions; - but, in a country like this, where such diversity of sentiments exists, especially upon theological subjects, and where morality is considered a part of religion and is, to some extent, modified by sectarian views, the difficulty and danger of attempting to introduce these subjects into our schools, according to one fixed and settled plan, to be decided by a Central Board, must be obvious. The right to mold the political, moral and religious opinion of his children, is a right exclusively and jealously reserved by our own laws to every parent; and for the government to attempt, directly or indirectly, as to these matters, to stand in the parent’s place, is an undertaking of very questionable policy. Such an attempt cannot fail to excite a feeling of jealousy, with respect to our public schools the results of which could not but be disastrous. (59)

The Protestants maintained their schools to the exclusion of the Catholics, only to have the same arguments turned against them by the secularists years later.

Chapter 5

Relevant Supreme Court decisions. The ambiguous religious/secular framework remains foundational for SCOTUS. The Court’s reflect the same ambiguity and lack of recognition concerning the religious nature of the secular. Completely baffling judicial reasoning, devoid of any experiential knowledge of a living faith.

Chapter 6

The trajectory of judicial findings results in a recognition that private beliefs cannot be separated from their public exercise. The government is not to a priori define what is or is not religion. Religion is properly defined by people who are religious. Equal protection and free exercise require that parents should be able to send their kids to religious school without penalty.

Chapter 7

Public vs. Private diversity. An alternative democracy - consociational. The recognition of diversity through all aspects of a person’s life. The emphasis is on proportionality rather than “winner take all.” Examples of Swiss, Belgium, and Netherlands.

Chapter 8

Some proposals for rectifying the current injustice. Fundamentally, providing legitimate choice without privileging the wealthy or penalizing those who make it. The State of Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) system is probably the closest thing I’ve seen to a true implementation of many of these principals, although other states have begun to copy/implement.

Life is Mostly Edges

Mon, 07 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0000

The book brought tears to my eyes as I read his “What I’d do differently” having just learned that he had passed.

Having just finished Calvin Miller’s memoir, I’m thankful to the Lord for his life, and even more for him having opportunity to write it down. While it was a good story, at several points I was struck with several convictions (as every good story ought to leave with us):

Make sure you don’t love “the things of God” in place of God himself. Make seeking Jesus your daily endeavor. It is him with whom you’ll be spending eternity.
The people we interact with are human beings, created in the image of God, and we ought always to treat them as such. To hell with the backbiting and intrigue, with gossip and disregard of other’s lives. Let us tread carefully when rebuking or criticizing and not strain at gnats.
We are called to serve those around us, but our first duty of service is to the wife and children God has given us. Let no other project cause you to sacrifice them on the altar of success. At the end of your life you will not wish you had spent more time pursuing an agenda.
The world is so big, don’t be so laser-focused that you only ever have time for the drive and miss all that’s around you. Art, creativity, and leisure are not necessarily distractions from the mission, but are part of who we are. Did Shakespeare waste his life, or did he serve God and his fellow man?
Often the deepest joys are manufactured in the laboratory of pain.

Preface: A backward glance at upfront things

joy rarely erupts in the safe centers of our lives. Laughter may inhabit the middle, but not joy. Joy rises only along the edges. (xv)

Chapter 2: The Five Good Gifts of a Scoundrel

A matter once decided finds little betterment in being fondled. “What might have been” leads only to a dour rehearsal of “what ifs?” It consumes our good judgment. It negates reality with years of frivolous fictions. (24)

The last place you want to go worship is the place where people need you to be poor so they themselves can feel rich in the dispensation of their charity. There is something grandiose about giving a beggar a dime, but there’s nothing grandiose in receiving it. Beggars don’t ask for money so they can think well of themselves, but because feeling bad about themselves is usually less painful than starvation. (59)

Chapter 7: Coming of Age in Pond Creek

John and Sophie taught me that it is not enough to believe in something sincerely. It is also important to be informed. This was one of the morst important things I ever learned. The difference between being passionately wrong about a thing and being cooly informed is the wide chasm known as naivete. Most all of my life, it seems I have been helping people past the outcome of disconolate policies they picked up from being zealous about former errors. (155)

Chapter 8: Beating the underwear people

“Keep every plan out in the open, and you’ll never get in trouble. Keep the church finances that way too Let everybody know freely everything you know, and don’t have any special people you try to placate by giving them information first. When everybody owns the church and its dreams, the church is healthy. When there are little secret pockets of informants, decay is in the wind. Paul said over in 1 Corinthians 1:10 that the church must be perfectly united in its reasons for existing. The leader and the led are equal partners in the union. The church has got to be owned by everybody, son!” (177)

People who only kiss are too much interested in the fire that lies beyond it. Watch those who opt for holding hands instead. These know the life of partnership and offer the hand at evert patch of ice that threatens life. Hand-holders survive. Kissers slobber and move on to other empty promises of fire. (182)

Chapter 9: Dearly Beloved, We are Gathered Here a Bit Confused

Honor is the bedrock of every real promise and I believe it is the bedrock of every marriage that lasts. I will never love Barbara any more than the sacredness of my promises. In a minite I’m going to look her in the eyes and say, “For better, for worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part.” And when I say that, I’m going to mean it as no one standing at any altar has ever meant it. I believe that somewhere out there in the future, I will be more certain about love, but I will never me more certain about integrity than I am right now. (195)

The mean temperature of Oklahoma in July is posted daily hyst outside the gates of hell to remind the damned just how bessed they are. (198)

Chapter 10: Umbilical Stretch

In the heart of my heart I can see that the end of all procreation is a simple symmetry. The children were never ours. They came from God through us to take their place in the kingdom of God. And when they were gone, all that once had made us rich, left us richer still. And I can see that when we sit alone surrounded by the thousand ghosts who made our lives full, we shall be real in their midst and agree that God meant us for this thing called parenting. And we are proof that once our children were gone the only treasure left was our togetherness. (224)

Chapter 11: Bloody Sundays

I could solve my God need if I could only be a little more “how to” than I am. Countless books tell pastors how to build empires, collect stock portfolios, preach in a clever fashion, and stay in the saddle during a church crisis. But I don’t want to succeed at any “how to” I can think of. Not primarily at least. I just want to be friends with God - close friends! (228)

Chapter 13: The Year with No Christmas

I do believe this: our lives belong to God, and I suppose it doesn’t much matter what we spend them doing as long as we desire his perfect will to be carried out in our love for Him. There was something exhilarating about a career change, if it can be called that. I found myself looking forward to professorhood. And the notion that it was what God wanted enhanced the days ahead. (284)

Chapter 14: The Calcutta Kid and Tombstone Shopping

Love exists only in the lives of those who have learned to kiss in the laboratory of pain. Love is the kiss that has laid aside by the fire of the honeymoon night, and found itself in the chaste hello of the cancer ward. Love is the trembling feel of faithful lips on a wrinkled hand. Love is a willingness to walk slow when our lover finds each plodding step a triumph over sluggish tendons. Come back to me you over-ecstatic, untried twenty year-olds, when you are broken by age, then tell me of your love once you have gained the right to define it. (309)

Chapter 17: The God of What’s Left

What would I do differently if I could do it all over again?

I would put more emphasis on being a better husband and father…

I’d celebrate my mother in her presence…

I’d build a monument on Golgotha

I’d babysit

Outline:

View PDF

John Calvin on the American Revolution

Sat, 04 Jul 2015 16:31:00 +0000

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, finished 217 years before the American War for Independence, John Calvin wrote a chapter on the concept of Civil Government and how Christians should think and behave with respect towards government authority. In this chapter, he explains from numerous teachings of Scripture that believers are to be obedient to the authorities that God, by his Providence, has placed over them. Civil governments are instituted by God and designed for the good of people, and the institution should be respected as such. He argues forcefully that this principle even applies to unjust governments, and should guide Christian behavior even under severe tyranny.

Christian citizens are to leave vengeance to God and not to revolt against established authorities to right injustice, but instead should look to the Lord for deliverance and mercy, which he will often bring through the course of events.

The one exception to this nearly absolute injunction is in the case where the reigning authority mandates something which God has forbidden or prohibits something which God has commanded. In that case, it is our duty to obey God rather than the unlawful command of the government, suffering whatever consequences may come as a result. Even in this case, however, we are not to attempt to overthrow or replace this government, but simply to obey God above it.

According to Calvin, all popular uprisings of people against their government would appear to violate these scriptural dictates. He summarizes by saying that “if the correction of unbridled despotism is the Lord’s to avenge, let us not at once think that it is not entrusted to us, to whom no command has been given except to obey and suffer.”

So, what would Calvin say of the American Revolution? On the surface, it would seem that the colonial revolt against imperial rule would be forbidden on the basis of these principles. However, in the next paragraph, he adds a clarification that adds a whole new dimension to the discussion:

“I am speaking all the while of private individuals. For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings…I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God’s ordinance.”

In other words, while private individuals have no place opposing the tyranny of unjust rulers, lesser authorities within a government, whose responsibility is to protect and govern the citizens, are not only authorized but obliged to resist the oppression of their subjects by the higher authority. Failure to do so would be an abdication of the responsibility placed on them by God.

It is this last scenario - the lesser magistrate opposing the unjust greater magistrate - that I think applies to the situation surrounding the American Revolution. Rather than an insurrection of citizens against their government (a la the French Revolution), the lawful authorities of the 13 states recognized the tyranny of the British government and acted on behalf of their subjects to free them from that oppression.

This is certainly a debatable perspective, but is the only way I see that the American Revolution could be understood to cohere with biblical principles regarding government.

James 1:12-15 - Trial's, Temptations, life and death

Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:35:00 +0000

I. The Reward for steadfastness

Present and future blessedness
Blessed are those who endure and remain faithful under trial.
God tests our faith not only to grow it but to literally test it. The legitimacy, genuineness, veracity of it.
When we fail and fall we don’t feel blessed.
The future reward is the crown of life. (Eg. Church at Smyrna)
Literally, to those “loving him” - those who keep the faith.
We are told to contemplate the inheritance that awaits us and be motivated by it.

II. The Rationale for Sin

When people fail they tend to place the blame with God. When we place the blame on anything outside of ourselves we are blaming God.
James says no - God is not the one who tempts us to sin.
Cf. Proverbs 19:3
God is not tempted with evil, and he does not tempt others.
CF. Deut 6:16 - don’t tempt God.

III. The Responsibility for Sin

The cause of sin is not external situations
It’s starts because of our own desire (our fallen nature, “the flesh”)
It lures and it entices like a bait lures and traps a fish.
You always think sin will make you happier then it does.

IV. The Result of Sin

When desires and will meet then sin is conceived.
Then sin grows into death.
We should get rid of sin

James 1:2-4 - Growing By Life's Tests

Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:35:00 +0000

I. The Reality: Life is filled with trials of various kinds.

Not if, but when
two possible meanings of trials: “inner enticement to sin” or “difficult circumstances”
Meet - “fall into the hands of; swallowed up”
Tragedies, pain, suffering of various kinds
How are you going to respond? Don’t look merely at the immediate problem but the end result God is going to bring about.

II. The response: We must choose to face life’s trials with active intentional joy.

Not a fake plastic smile, but a deep trust in Gods plan and purpose.
All joy, in the sense of pure and undefiled when the trials come. Real, no filler.
A reaction of pure joy is unnatural here
James does not say that trials are joy. We’re supposed to consider them joy and count them as joy but it’s not to deny the hardship of reality but to not become skeptical and bitter, but to trust God’s purpose and plan.
Do I trust that God knows what he doing?
These trials have the purpose of bringing something better to pass.

III. The reason: Life’s trials serve the beneficial purpose of developing steadfastness in us.

The Bible never says that bad things are good, but he does use them to serve good purposes.
Cf. Romans 8:28
At a minimum, these trials bring about steadfastness (perseverance). We “know” this is an experiential way. He stands behind every trial and test. If you don’t know this then your joy will nonexistent or fake.
If your struggling through this trial, the answer is not to try to be more joy but to try to be more “know.” Joy is the fruit of faith and knowledge of God.
Arabic proverb: “Sunshine alone produces deserts.”
Suffering has a strengthening influence on our live.
Cf. Romans 5:3
Psalm 12:6 - refined and purified, a blacksmiths word about the producing something useful out of simple metal. This is what God is doing with us in trials.

IV. The Result: we must let life’s trials develop us into the complete people God wants us to be.

Not some kind of sinless moral perfection, but something that is finished or fully developed.
Analogy of baking a pie to completion.

Hosea - 4:1-5:7

Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:35:00 +0000

Outline:

View PDF

Hosea - 1:1-3:5

Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:35:00 +0000

Outline:

View PDF

Peeling Potatoes to the Glory of God

Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:14:00 +0000

There is no sacred vs. secular distinction when it comes to glorifying God in our work. All work is pleasing to him, provided it is done in love and service to our neighbor and with a view towards excellence.

“As Eric Liddell’s missionary father exhorts him in Chariots of Fire, “You can praise the Lord by peeling a spud, if you peel it to perfection.” Your daily work is ultimately an act of worship to the God who called and equipped you to do it - no matter what kind of work it is.” (Keller, Every Good Endeavor, 80)

A Personal Mission Statement

Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:18:00 +0000

Core Purpose

To display God’s excellence by doing good for others to God’s glory.

Core Principles

Overall Principles
- Seek to understand the true sense and teaching of Scripture.
- Do all things with a mind to pleasing Christ.
- Be honest and always keep your promises.
- Live every day as if you will stand before God tomorrow.
- Ask God for every need and want, but trust his judgment to provide what is best.
- In all things, whether work or recreation, make the most productive use of the time provided, not squandering it.
- Forgive, as you have been forgiven.
- Apart from Christ, you can do nothing.
Doing Good
- Strive to consider others more important than yourself.
- Be as understanding with the faults of others as you are of your own.
- If there is a genuine need, and it is within your power to help, then do it.
- Seek the things that are truly for the good of others, not just the things that please others or satisfy your conscience.
Work
- Work as if you are employed by the Lord.
- Strive for excellence as a reflection of He who is most excellent.
- Always keep in mind those who will be inheriting your work after you, and act in love toward them.
- Do the right things right, the first time.
- Care for those under your supervision as you would your own kin.
Family
- Model and teach godly character.
- Be consistent in discipline.
- Fill our house with love and laughter.
- Say yes as much as possible.
- Strive for patience and not yelling.
- Work for a marriage that reflects Christ and the Church.
Church
- Always strive to be active in a community of believers.
- Attempt to use the knowledge and abilities given to me in service to the Church.
- Seek genuine relationships that go below the surface, founded on our common grace in Christ.
Money
- Be generous and eager to lend.
- Remember that all that you have belongs to the Lord and you are a steward of his things.
- Don’t try to “keep up with the Jones’.”
- Be responsible in saving and investing, but don’t trust in riches.
- Be frugal but not cheap.
Suffering
- Trust that our Heavenly Father is sovereign over all things, knows our pain, and will not allow anything that is not for our good.
- Know that the furnace of suffering cleans away filth and produces fruit of righteousness.
- Never allow trials to draw me away from Christ, but strive to press in deeper through them.
- Maintain a constant remembrance of the hope that awaits us in Christ.

Core Beliefs

God is a Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit existing eternally in loving fellowship with one another.
Humans were created in God’s image to reflect his glory by ruling over creation, but we disobeyed his commands and have fallen into rebellion and wrath.
Through his promises to Abraham and Israel, God has begun a mission to deliver the world from bondage to sin and to reverse the curse.
This mission culminates in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God born in human flesh, our Messiah and Lord, who lived a life of perfect obedience to the will of God, and by his death on a cross paid the penalty for our sins, and by his resurrection became the first fruits of the new creation, being exalted to the right hand of God the Father, he is Lord over all creation and intercedes specially for his church.
Those who place their trust and allegiance in Jesus have been given a mission to bring the message of salvation and forgiveness of sins to all nations, teaching them obedience and baptizing them into his name.
Jesus dwells in His Church by the Holy Spirit, who brings conviction of sin, understanding in truth, and growth in fellowship and holiness of life.
On the day appointed, the Lord will return to judge the living and the dead and to bring salvation and eternal life to all who have hoped in him.
He will bring about a new creation, a restored heaven and earth, in which we will live and reign with God as vice-regents over all creation, worshiping and working in righteousness and peace forever and ever.

The common Christian approach to reconciling God’s predestination with human freedom is to say that God predestines based on his foreknowledge of free human actions. In his discussion of Pelagian views of divine providence, Herman Bavinck argues that divine foreknowledge must either be redundant, being fundamentally identical to predestination, or nonexistent. The choice, then, is between Predestination or Open Theism. He writes:

“Pelagianism, however, does not yet marshal its full strength when it opposes the general and special providence of God. To some extent it even recognizes this doctrine. But it comes out fighting especially when the eternal state of rational creatures, the particular decree of predestination, is at issue. Now, predestination is only a particular application of the counsel or providence of God. Just as we cannot separate the natural from the moral world, so neither can we point to a boundary line between the temporal condition of human creatures and their eternal state. With respect to the latter, however, Pelagianism has traded predestination for foreknowledge and described foreordination as the decree of God in which he determined either eternal blessedness or eternal punishment for people, depending on whether he foresaw their persevering faith or their undying unbelief. Now, however generally this view has been adopted in the Christian church (is it not the confession of all Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Remonstrant [Arminians], Anabaptist, and Methodist Christians?), it is nevertheless firmly contradicted by Scripture, religious experience, and theological reflection.

“In the first place, Scripture clearly teaches that faith and unbelief, salvation and perdition, are not just the objects of God’s “bare foreknowledge” but especially also of his will and decree. God’s foreknowledge (πρόγνωσις: Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2; c.f. Acts 2:23) is not a passive form of recognition, not a state of consciousness, but…a self-determination of God, prior to its realization in history, to assume a certain specific relation to the objects of his foreknowledge. It is most closely related to God’s purpose (πρόθεσις), foreordination (προορίζω), and election (ἐκλογή), and is an act of his good pleasure (εὐδοκία).

“Second, it is the teaching of Scripture that faith cannot arise from within the heart of an unspiritual person (1 Cor. 2:14), that it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; 1 Cor. 4:7) and therefore does not precede election but is its fruit and effect (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4-5; Acts 13:48). Third, it is the unanimous witness of all religious Christian experience that salvation, both in an objective and a subjective sense, is solely the work of God. Though in theory a person may be Pelagian, in the practice of the Christian life, above all in prayer, every Christian is an Augustinian. In that connection all glorying in self is excluded, and God alone is given the honor. Augustine, accordingly, was right when he said that the ancient church’s faith in God’s grace expressed itself in prayers rather than in its “little works.”

“Fourth, divine foreknowledge is certainly of such a kind that its object is known in advance as absolutely certain, and then it is identical with predestination. However, if its object is totally accidental and arbitrary, it cannot have been foreknown either. According to the teach of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran churches and even according to the Remonstrants - all of whom attempt to substitute foreknowledge for predestination - the number of those who believe and will be saved is just as fixed and certain as it is according to Augustine and Reformed theologians. Said Augustine: “The number of the elect is certain; it can neither be increased nor diminished.” This is also the teaching of Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, and all Catholic theologians, although they differ among themselves in that some derive the certainty of the outcome from the will, while others, such as Molina (et al.) derive it from the knowledge of God. In later years Lutheran theologians indeed made predestination depend on foreknowledge, yet they never questioned the certainty and immutability of the outcome. In numerous passages (Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:24; 25:34; John 10:28; Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Pet. 1:2-4) Scripture speaks in language so clear and strong, after all, that they can hardly deny this immutability.

“Formally, as well as materially, both in terms of quantity and quality, the number of the saved is unalterably fixed, according to the confession of all Christian churches. But when theologians recognize this fact and think it through, they have to equate foreknowledge with providence and predestination. In advance, with a foreknowledge that is eternal and immutable, God has known those who would believe. Given this foreknowledge, these people will also most certainly and infallibly come to faith and salvation in time. On this position there nowhere remains any room for “freedom” in the sense of chance and caprice. Foreknowledge, then, by definition includes predestination. If…one says that God foreknew the fortuitous precisely in its fortuitous character, one has reverted to Augustine’s line of thought and consequently has no problem harmonizing freedom with predestination. The central question is this: Can these free and fortuitous events be know from eternity with absolute certainty?

“If the answer is yes, Augustine is right and the entire doctrine of foreknowledge is redundant. If the answer is no, one has to go on and also reject foreknowledge. In that case the outcome of world history is strictly fortuitous and as such remains incalculable and unknowable. Cicero, seeing this, denied foreknowledge as well. In later years he was followed by the Socinians, Remonstrants, Vorstius, and numerous modern theologians, who in the interest of maintaining the freedom of the human creature, adopted a kind of divine self-limitation in knowledge, will, and power.

“Christian churches, however, shrank from this conclusion. All of them confess God’s providence and foreknowledge. All things happen in time as God eternally knew they would. The final result and the ways and means leading to it are established in God’s providence. Thus considered, the doctrine of predestination is neither just a confession of the Reformed churches, nor a private opinion of Augustine and Calvin, but a dogma of the entire Christian church. Though there are differences in the name by which it is called and the manner in which it is presented, materially there is agreement: all Christian churches and theologians confess that all things exist, happen, and reach their destiny in accordance with God’s eternal knowledge. In that sense, Augustine could rightly say: “There was never a time when the church of Christ did not hold the truth of this belief in predestination, which is now being defended with fresh concern against new heretics.” Although the confessions differ in the degree of attention paid to this doctrine, they all have it. In fact, it can be said that, whether one thinks along Pelagian or Augustinian lines, the matter about which one thinks remains the same. History does not change. The facts are their interconnectedness in world history are as they are regardless of the true or false notions we entertain concerning them. The sole difference is this: Reformed Christians, with Scripture in their hands and Augustine as their leader, did not stop at the consideration of secondary causes but ventured to push on to faith in the primary cause, that is, the will of God, in which alone they experienced rest for their mind and life. The doctrine of predestination finds its invincible power and severity in the facts of world history interpreted by God’s Word as the implementation of his eternal counsel. Although the doctrine itself is not harsh and severe, awesomely serious are the facts on which it is built. Pelagianism fails to satisfy the human mind for one reason alone: at every point in life and of the history of humankind it conflicts with reality - a reality that is awesome indeed. Pelagianism is a veneer that, though highly deceptive, in no way changes reality.” (Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol II, 377-379)

Bavinck vs. the Pelagians (or, Foreknowledge = Predestination)

Sat, 09 Nov 2013 21:17:00 +0000

“Pelagianism, however, does not yet marshal its full strength when it opposes the general and special providence of God. To some extent it even recognizes this doctrine. But it comes out fighting especially when the eternal state of rational creatures, the particular decree of predestination, is at issue. Now, predestination is only a particular application of the counsel or providence of God. Just as we cannot separate the natural from the moral world, so neither can we point to a boundary line between the temporal condition of human creatures and their eternal state. With respect to the latter, however, Pelagianism has traded predestination for foreknowledge and described foreordination as the decree of God in which he determined either eternal blessedness or eternal punishment for people, depending on whether he foresaw their persevering faith or their undying unbelief. Now, however generally this view has been adopted in the Christian church (is it not the confession of all Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Remonstrant [Arminians], Anabaptist, and Methodist Christians?), it is nevertheless firmly contradicted by Scripture, religious experience, and theological reflection. “In the first place, Scripture clearly teaches that faith and unbelief, salvation and perdition, are not just the objects of God’s “bare foreknowledge” but especially also of his will and decree. God’s foreknowledge (πρόγνωσις: Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2; c.f. Acts 2:23) is not a passive form of recognition, not a state of consciousness, but…a self-determination of God, prior to its realization in history, to assume a certain specific relation to the objects of his foreknowledge. It is most closely related to God’s purpose (πρόθεσις), foreordination (προορίζω), and election (ἐκλογή), and is an act of his good pleasure (εὐδοκία).

“Second, it is the teaching of Scripture that faith cannot arise from within the heart of an unspiritual person (1 Cor. 2:14), that it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; 1 Cor. 4:7) and therefore does not precede election but is its fruit and effect (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4-5; Acts 13:48). Third, it is the unanimous witness of all religious Christian experience that salvation, both in an objective and a subjective sense, is solely the work of God. Though in theory a person may be Pelagian, in the practice of the Christian life, above all in prayer, every Christian is an Augustinian. In that connection all glorying in self is excluded, and God alone is given the honor. Augustine, accordingly, was right when he said that the ancient church’s faith in God’s grace expressed itself in prayers rather than in its “little works.”

“Fourth, divine foreknowledge is certainly of such a kind that its object is known in advance as absolutely certain, and then it is identical with predestination. However, if its object is totally accidental and arbitrary, it cannot have been foreknown either. According to the teach of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran churches and even according to the Remonstrants - all of whom attempt to substitute foreknowledge for predestination - the number of those who believe and will be saved is just as fixed and certain as it is according to Augustine and Reformed theologians. Said Augustine: “The number of the elect is certain; it can neither be increased nor diminished.” This is also the teaching of Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, and all Catholic theologians, although they differ among themselves in that some derive the certainty of the outcome from the will, while others, such as Molina (et al.) derive it from the knowledge of God. In later years Lutheran theologians indeed made predestination depend on foreknowledge, yet they never questioned the certainty and immutability of the outcome. In numerous passages (Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:24; 25:34; John 10:28; Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Pet. 1:2-4) Scripture speaks in language so clear and strong, after all, that they can hardly deny this immutability.

“Formally, as well as materially, both in terms of quantity and quality, the number of the saved is unalterably fixed, according to the confession of all Christian churches. But when theologians recognize this fact and think it through, they have to equate foreknowledge with providence and predestination. In advance, with a foreknowledge that is eternal and immutable, God has known those who would believe. Given this foreknowledge, these people will also most certainly and infallibly come to faith and salvation in time. On this position there nowhere remains any room for “freedom” in the sense of chance and caprice. Foreknowledge, then, by definition includes predestination. If…one says that God foreknew the fortuitous precisely in its fortuitous character, one has reverted to Augustine’s line of thought and consequently has no problem harmonizing freedom with predestination. The central question is this: Can these free and fortuitous events be know from eternity with absolute certainty?

“If the answer is yes, Augustine is right and the entire doctrine of foreknowledge is redundant. If the answer is no, one has to go on and also reject foreknowledge. In that case the outcome of world history is strictly fortuitous and as such remains incalculable and unknowable. Cicero, seeing this, denied foreknowledge as well. In later years he was followed by the Socinians, Remonstrants, Vorstius, and numerous modern theologians, who in the interest of maintaining the freedom of the human creature, adopted a kind of divine self-limitation in knowledge, will, and power.

“Christian churches, however, shrank from this conclusion. All of them confess God’s providence and foreknowledge. All things happen in time as God eternally knew they would. The final result and the ways and means leading to it are established in God’s providence. Thus considered, the doctrine of predestination is neither just a confession of the Reformed churches, nor a private opinion of Augustine and Calvin, but a dogma of the entire Christian church. Though there are differences in the name by which it is called and the manner in which it is presented, materially there is agreement: all Christian churches and theologians confess that all things exist, happen, and reach their destiny in accordance with God’s eternal knowledge. In that sense, Augustine could rightly say: “There was never a time when the church of Christ did not hold the truth of this belief in predestination, which is now being defended with fresh concern against new heretics.” Although the confessions differ in the degree of attention paid to this doctrine, they all have it. In fact, it can be said that, whether one thinks along Pelagian or Augustinian lines, the matter about which one thinks remains the same. History does not change. The facts are their interconnectedness in world history are as they are regardless of the true or false notions we entertain concerning them. The sole difference is this: Reformed Christians, with Scripture in their hands and Augustine as their leader, did not stop at the consideration of secondary causes but ventured to push on to faith in the primary cause, that is, the will of God, in which alone they experienced rest for their mind and life. The doctrine of predestination finds its invincible power and severity in the facts of world history interpreted by God’s Word as the implementation of his eternal counsel. Although the doctrine itself is not harsh and severe, awesomely serious are the facts on which it is built. Pelagianism fails to satisfy the human mind for one reason alone: at every point in life and of the history of humankind it conflicts with reality - a reality that is awesome indeed. Pelagianism is a veneer that, though highly deceptive, in no way changes reality.” (Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol II, 377-379)

John 4 - The Word at the well

Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:35:00 +0000

View PDF

How Deep The Father's Love For Us

Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:48:00 +0000

For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16, HCSB)

How do you apply a passage like John 3:16? For starters, you believe. But beyond that, consider the love of God which is made manifest in Christ Jesus.

The Father loved me and gave himself - his one and only Son - up for me. “How deep the Father’s love for us, how vast beyond all measure, that he should give his only Son, to make a wretch his treasure…”
The Son loved me and gave himself - his own life - up for me. “Oh, how he loves us so, how he loves us…” “Amazing love, how can it be, that thou, my God, shouldst die for me? …”
The Spirit loved me and gave me new life, opening my eyes to behold the beauty and the majesty of Christ. “Holy Spirit, living Breath of God, Breathe new life into my willing soul. Bring the presence of the risen Lord To renew my heart and make me whole. Cause Your Word to come alive in me; Give me faith for what I cannot see; Give me passion for Your purity. Holy Spirit, breathe new life in me.”
We are humbled, and grateful, and deeply loved. The depth of this love is manifest in who we were and what he gave up. Sinners, such a commonplace word. Rebels of the crown, enemies of the Most High…those upon whom his judgment justly rests. Yet, he leaves the glory and honor of his heavenly throne and condescends to the form of a Servant, suffering the brunt of that rebellion and enmity in his own flesh and simultaneously taking upon himself the judgment due to us.
We have hope. If our God did this that we might be saved, what shall we fear? If in his death we have been reconciled to God, how much more shall we be saved by his life? (Rom. 5:6-10) “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him freely give us all things?” (Rom. 8:32)
We love because he loved. “This is how we have come to know love: he laid down his life for us. We should also lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has this world’s goods and sees his brother in need, but closes his eyes to his need - how can God’s love reside in him?” (1 John 3:16) “God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins…if God loved us in this way, we also must love one another.” (1 John 4:9-11)
We become vessels of his love. The love of Christ, which was manifest in his death for us, controls us and compels us forward, making us his ambassadors. “For Christ’s love compels us, since we have reached this conclusion: If One died for all, then all died. And He died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for the One who died for them and was raised…if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away, and look, new things have come. Everything is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: That is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed the message of reconciliation to us. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, certain that God is appealing through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God.” He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:14-15,17-21, HCSB)

No, no, do not heed that voice, it will lead astray
Ships frequent her shores, captains retire in her deep tombs
Wisdom knows his knowledge, but that is not the way
Where is wisdom found? Does someone know where he stays?

Take heed, poor traveller, lay aside every care
Wisdom’s search is long, and your resources are near gone
Come in and be filled, lest you fall into a snare
Abundant provision awaits, to help you get there

No, no, do not heed that voice, it will lead astray
Many lodge to refresh but are never away gone
Wisdom is light in travel, keep on in the way
Where is wisdom found? Does someone know where he stays?

Wisdom’s light never to be found wandering the night
You must search for day, then with light you make him known
Strike a match, light a lamp, wait for sunrise to bright
Then you’ll see clearly to find wisdom your delight

No, no, do not heed that voice, it will lead astray
Enlightenment brings a wisdom, but not as you had hoped
Nay, wisdom is light and brings with it true day
Where is wisdom found? Does someone know where he stays?

Dear friend, you tremble in fear and do rightly so
Wisdom is not to be found and he names no home
You search and grope and wander but still do not know
Pay no heed to those calling, voice of many foes

Wisdom you won’t find, because it is you he seeks
Standing in your midst, though ever humble and meek
No doubt you know my voice, and the words that I speak
Dressed as folly to foes, I bring strength to the weak

Dear friend, you tremble in fear and do rightly so
Wisdom begins with fear of him whose name you know
He entered your dark, died your foes to overthrow
Life dressed in death, and wisdom in folly clothed

Here wisdom is found, and with me ever to stay
Guiding through the dark, he brings me to the true day
Every rhyme is off beat and every chord misplayed
Until he enters and brings healing to decay.

This is Life

Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0000

Listen: The Wound My Reward

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Flesh and blood - Heart beating,
Tears streaming, Lungs heaving.
This is life.
He owns it, He made it.
He wants it, He’ll save it.
Why now and how?
So much to bring, So much to offer,
So much but now - Nothing.
All our hopes are gone, All our fears are come.
Everywhere I look and see -
First one, then two, then three:
Death, theft, hate -
Where is love? Where is generosity?
Where is life?
This is life.
Lungs heaving, Tears streaming,
Heart beating, Flesh and blood.
He wrote the play, This is his day.
They cut him off in his prime,
But he chose this time.
All our hopes are gone, All our fears are come.
It must be so -
Hope must go, Fear must grow,
The world must know:
Its own wisdom reigns.
It can’t answer the pains.
It can’t answer the chains.
On its own tree life hangs.
Nothing to bring, Nothing to offer,
Nothing but now - Death.
This is the end of the line.
No exit and no rewind.
An unscalable wall.
An unmovable stone.
This was his day, He wrote the play.
Now what?
First one, then two, then three:
Death swallowed up in victory.
This is life.
Lungs heaving, Heart beating, Tears streaming -
All our hopes are come, All our fears are gone.
It must be so -
The world must know:
Wisdom reigns.
He took the pains.
He broke the chains.
On him life hangs.
Nothing to offer, Nothing to bring,
Nothing but now - To kneel and sing:
Worthy is the lamb who slain,
Worthy to receive power and wealth,
Worthy to receive wisdom and might,
Worthy to receive honor and glory and blessing.

Whence came sin?

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:09:00 +0000

“Sin exists, but it will never be able to justify its existence. It is unlawful and irrational.” - Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics

Following his discussion of why God would allow sin in his creation, Bavinck acknowledges that even this does not ultimately solve the mystery as to the origin of sin. How is it that a being created in the image of God, in righteousness and holiness turn away from him? He suggests keeping these things in mind:

The possibility of sinning is from God. It must have first been conceived by him for it to exist. He writes: “God eternally conceived sin as his absolute polar opposite and thus, in that sense, included it in his decree, or else it would have been able to arise and exist in reality. It was not Satan, nor Adam and Eve, who first conceived the idea of sin: God himself as it were made it visible to their eyes. By means of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the probationary command, he clearly showed human beings the two roads they could take. And before the fall he even permitted an evil power from without to insinuate itself into Paradise, using the snake as its medium, and to discuss with Eve the meaning of the probationary command.” (66)
God so created angels and humans that they could sin and fall. “Human beings, though they walked on the right road, could stray onto a side road. They were good, but changeable so. God alone is fully existent in all his attributes and therefore immutable. Creatures, however, become and can therefore also degenerate. All that has been created can change…Moral freedom, however vigorous, is inherently distinct from logical necessity and physical force. A creature naturally incapable of sin, therefore, is a contradiction.” (67)
There is some relationship between the origin of sin and the faculty of imagination. “Thomas à Kempis describes it: “At first it is a mere thought confronting the mind; then imagination paints it in stronger colors; only after that do we take pleasure in it, and the will makes a false move, and we give our assent.” The mind entertains the idea of sin, the imagination beautifies and converts it into a fascinating ideal, desire reaches out to it, and the will goes ahead and does it. Thus in the case of both angels and humans, the imagination was the faculty that made the violation of the commandment appear as the road to equality with God.” (67)
The cases of humans are angels are different. Unlike humans, who are made of dust then breathed with life, who were tempted and had sin aroused in them from without through the lust of the eyes, the craving of the flesh, and the pride of life, “temptation did not come to [angels] from without. They fell by their own agency. Jesus says that the devil speaks “according to his own nature” when he lies. He became discontented with his status and power on his own, that is, by his own thinking; he produced the lie from within himself and projected it as a realm, a system, over against the truth of God…The origin and essence of sin has a very different character in the case of humanity that in that of the angels.” (68)

Even with these considerations, all that is settled is a possibility of sin, with the answer as to why the possibility was realized still shrouded in mystery. Ultimately, the explanation escapes us because it is an irrational absurdity.

“Here we enter the mysterious area of moral freedom and face a phenomenon that in the nature of the case, as it concerns its origin, escapes explanation. A moral act, after all, is never equivalent to a conclusion from a premises nor to a physical or chemical result. It essentially differs from both and has a character of its own. The moral life is utterly unique; it is always a life of freedom and that, in the nature of the case, is a riddle…Sin cannot be physically or logically deduced from antecedent circumstances, reasonings, or considerations. Above all, it cannot be inferred from a holy nature created ion God’s image. One who understood and explained sin, that is, could demonstrate that it necessarily followed from antecedent factors, would fail to do justice to its nature, erase the boundaries between good and evil, and trace something evil to something good. The sinful act is caused by the sinful will, but who will indicate to us the cause of this sinful will?…Sin started with lying (John 8:44); it is based on illusion, an untrue picture, an imagined good that was not good. In its origin, therefore, it was a folly and an absurdity.” (69)

Living For Tomorrow (The Economics of Christian Belief)

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:34:00 +0000

There is a concept in economics known as time preference. Very basically, it is the notion that, all other things being equal, present satisfaction of our wants is to be preferred over future satisfaction. That is, if we can’t achieve our ends now, we want to do it as soon as we can. This means that we place a premium on delayed attainment of those ends. If I say, “you can have a $100 now or $100 in six years,” you would likely choose now without much consideration. However, if I were to say, “you can have $100 now or $1000 in six years,” you would be forced into thinking about the premium placed on the future money and whether it is sufficient to forgo the present ends you could attain with the $100. A corollary to this concept is the idea of time horizon, which is the period of time into the future in which we make plans to attain our ends. Some people live with today in mind, and others live with the next 30 years in mind, and they both plan accordingly. A combination of our time preference and our time horizon will have a big influence on how we make decisions. In the example above, the assumption is that your time horizon extends to at least 6 years, otherwise you would never consider forgoing the present satisfaction for the future greater satisfaction. Young children are notorious for having a very short time horizon. If I tell my 4 year old daughter, “you can choose between having one piece of chocolate today or having 5 pieces of chocolate in a week,” she will choose today’s chocolate without hesitation.

If you’ve ever known someone who appears to make unsound financial decisions, as if they are giving no thought for tomorrow, it’s very possible that they aren’t. A short time horizon is an important factor at play in why many people in a condition of poverty will often persist in that condition, even when opportunities have arisen that would allow them to improve their living condition.

I had a friend who was extremely poor, having just come off the streets and received housing assistance. He had just cleared the hurdles to begin receiving financial assistance and the checks had started to come in, with amounts sufficient for his living expenses plus some additional. Just a couple weeks later, he told me that he was trying figure how he would pay rent and buy groceries this week because he didn’t have any money. When I pressed him on the financial assistance he had received, he said he got the check but had used the money to buy a couch for his new apartment. It really never dawned on him during the course of making that decision that he might need to forgo the present good of a couch (or find a cheaper one) for the sake of the future good of being able to pay rent and buy food in two weeks.

One of the things that necessarily happens when someone is converted and becomes a follower of Jesus Christ is that they face a radical disruption in their time horizon. Whether the person previously lived for tomorrow, or lived for 30 years from now - either way, their time horizon is immediately extended beyond this life and into eternity. The effects of this cannot easily be overstated. When you are factoring in the goals and attainments, not only of this world, but of the world to come, it will influence every decision you make. For those who previously had a short time horizon, the immediate effect would be a recognition that they need to think beyond just today and you will notice a change in behavior accordingly. However, even those with a long time horizon will be impacted. For example, I may already believe that it’s beneficial for me to forgo a present satisfaction in order to enjoy the future satisfaction of a peaceful retirement. However, with eternity in mind, all of the sudden I may be forgoing even that peaceful retirement for the sake of something much greater.

Isn’t this essentially the argument that Jesus and Paul make repeatedly in the New Testament (Matt. 6:19-21; Matt. 19:21; Luke 18:29-30; 1 Tim. 6:17-19)? This goes beyond just what you do with money, but affects every action you take. Why would you willingly forgo present comfort and endure much suffering and hardship, even potentially dying? It may make no sense with a time horizon of 1,10, or even 50 years, but with a Christian time horizon, all of the sudden it’s the only thing that makes. As the missionary martyr Jim Elliot said, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.”

So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, gour inner self his being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison… (2 Cor. 4:16-18)

The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us… (Rom. 8:16-18)

If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied…Why are we in danger every hour? I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (1 Cor. 15:19, 30-32)

Let this mind be in you, as it was in Christ Jesus, who for the sake of the joy set before him endured cross, despising the shame (Heb. 12:2). In every decision we face, let us consider the kingdom and the inheritance in Christ which awaits us beyond this day.

Why Did God Allow Sin to Exist?

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:14:00 +0000

Herman Bavinck gives a superb answer:

“The answer is implied in the providence of God as it pertains to sin. Scripture repeated states that God uses sin as punishment of the wicked (Deut. 2:30; Joshua 11:20; Judges 9:23-24; John 12:40; Rom. 1:21-28; 2 Thess. 2:11-12), as a means of saving his people (Gen. 45:5; Gen. 50:20), to test and chastise believers (Job 1:11-12; 2 Sam 24:1; 1 Cor. 10:13; 1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Cor. 12:7), and to glorify his name (Exodus 7:3; Prov. 16:4; Rom. 9:17; Rom. 11:33). Precisely because God is the absolutely Holy and Almighty One, he can use sin as a means in his hand. Creatures cannot do that; with the least contact, they themselves become polluted no impure. But God is so infinitely far removed from wickedness that he can make sin, as an unresisting instrument, subservient to his glorification. There are countless examples that prove that also in this connection “when two parties do the same thing, it is not the same.” It was God’s will that Shimei cursed David, that Satan tested Job, that Jews and Gentiles wanted to give up God’s holy servant Jesus to death - still in all these iniquities, human creatures are guilty and God is innocent. For even when he wants there to be evil, he only wants it in a way that is holy: though using it, he never commits it. And for that reason, he has also allowed sin into his creation. He would not have tolerated it had he not been able to govern it in an absolute holy and sovereign manner. He would not have put up with it if he were not God, the Holy and Omnipotent One. But being God, he did not fear its existence and its power. He willed it so that in it and against it he might bring to light his divine attributes. If he had not allowed it to exist, there would always have been rationale for the idea that he was it in all his attributes superior to a power whose possibility was inherent in creation itself, for all rational creatures as creatures, as finite, limited, changeable beings, have the possibility of apostatizing. But God, because he is God, never feared the way of freedom, the reality of sin, the eruption of wickedness, or the power of Satan. So, both in its origin and its development, God always exercises his rule over sin. He does not force it, nor does he block it with violence but rather allows it to reach its full dynamic potential. He remains king yet still gives it free rein in his kingdom. He allows it to have everything - his world, his creature, even his Anointed - for evils cannot exist without goods. He allows it to us all that is his; he gives it opportunity to show what it can do in order, in the end, as King of kings, to leave the theater of battle. For sin is of such a nature that it destroys itself by the very freedom granted it; it dies of its own diseases; it dooms itself to death. At the apex of its power, it is, by the cross alone, publicly shown up in its powerlessness (Col. 2:15).” (Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 3, 64-65)

There is a higher throne

Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:43:00 +0000

Ezra 3-10

It’s comforting to read of the exiles in Persia being guided by God’s providence to be able to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the city and the temple. In the midst of opposition, under the rule of a pagan king, not only are they permitted to complete the project but it is fully funded for them. When the Lord has promised something, he will bring it about and no one can stay his hand. As Christ builds his church on the earth, this is a great comfort because there is opposition on all sides, from spiritual oppression, to government intervention, to local antagonism, to lack of funding, and to internal disputes or disobedience among the people of God themselves. Knowing that the sovereign Lord works to bring about his purposes through and in spite of these circumstances gives us cause to rejoice. We are the temple of the living God, being built by the Holy Spirit with Christ as the cornerstone. We do not rely on the edict of earthly kings but are under a King who has all authority in heaven and earth and neither Cyrus, nor Artaxerxes, nor Darius, no Caesar, nor the emperor, nor the Prime Minister, nor the Congress, nor the President can overrule his decree. Despite any attempts to the contrary, they will carry forward his plan and will. History ebbs and flows, with kingdoms and lords, ideologies and philosophies, armies and great powers rising and falling by the hand of enemies without and strife within. Yet through it all there is one Lord of history whose kingdom continues, without armies, without warfare, but with a powerful word and the love Christ, and it will one day contain people from every tribe, tongue, and nation on the earth.

The Lord said to his Son, “Ask of me and I will give you the nations as your inheritance.” One day we will hear the angelic voices announcing that, “the kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and he will reign forever and ever.”

Come, Lord Jesus.

Our Great High Priest

Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:14:00 +0000

Reading the account of Peter and Dorcus is Acts 9, I was struck when he said to her, “Tabitha, get up.” This immediately brought to mind Jesus raising Jairus’ daughter and saying to her, “Talitha, cume” or “Little girl, get up.” Peter is continuing in the footsteps of his Lord Jesus, bringing life and healing. Christ ascendedto the right hand of God but continues his work in the Holy Spirit through his Church. In that same chapter, Saul is stopped on the road by a vision of Jesus himself, who says, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?…I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” Paul’s threats and murder against the church are threats and murder against Jesus. He takes us into himself, identifies with us, so that our life becomes his life. This is a great comfort and hope - Jesus, seated at the right hand of God the Father, and us seated with him. He forever intercedes with us, standing before God making his plea on our behalf - this is what Stephen saw, Jesus standing (not sitting), as Stephen made his faithful witness. Stephen confessed Jesus before men, and Jesus confessed Stephen before his Heavenly Father. Our great high priest, our savior.

So when I stand in the world, Christ stands with me. When I suffer in the world, Christ suffers with me. When I speak to the world, Christ speaks through me. When I stand in the world, I know that Christ stands before God on my behalf. When I suffer in the world, Christ has suffered on my behalf. When I testify of him to the world, Christ testifies of me to the Father of my behalf.

An Undesirable God?

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 03:14:00 +0000

Over on Scot McKnight’s blog, Jeff Cook argues that one of the fundamental flaws in our apologetic encounters with non-Christians is that we’re playing completely different games - the Christian is attempting to argue for the reasonableness, probability, even certainty of Christianity, while the non-Christian is primarily dealing in categories of emotion and preference. In the example debate provided, the Christian wins on logic and argumentation, but ends up losing because the non-Christian excels at arguing from desire and preference, ridiculing God as distasteful and altogether unworthy of respect and admiration. This is a worthwhile observation. It’s not very persuasive to exhort someone to believe in a God who is altogether undesirable. As it was said of the Greeks and Romans of the first century, “It was not that men became so depraved that they abandoned the gods, but that the gods became so depraved that they were abandoned by men.” If you look at many Christians today, there is not much in their actions or demeanor that would commend their God. An non-believer looking in from the outside may very well conclude, “if that’s what their God is like, no thank you.” When the joy, the love, and the freedom that comes in Christ is missing in a Christian’s life and example, it detracts greatly from the power of their message. When the God they preach is abstract, or impersonal, or other than the God who came down and took the sin of the world upon himself on the Cross, it detracts greatly from the power of their message.

But could there be more to the question of why non-Christians often find our God unappealing other than that we make him appear so? In his book, the Heart of Evangelism, Jerram Barrs identifies several things that people find unworthy about Christianity and use to judge it immoral and our God unworthy of worship:

The Problem of Truth - the fact that Christianity makes a claim to be the truth - objectively, for everyone - is considered arrogant and offensive.
The Problem of Christ - Jesus’ claim to be the way, the truth, and the life, the only means of reaching God the Father is inherently exclusive, and is therefore to be considered intolerant and unloving. It is disrespectful to even imply that someone else might be wrong in their beliefs and need to change them (ironic, to be sure).
The Problem of Moral Law - it is considered immoral and offensive to claim that a moral law applies to others. “My values” is just fine, but when it becomes “you ought” then a line has been crossed.
The Problem of Judgment - that God should be the judge of human behavior is seen as outrageous and an affront to the idol of freedom to do as we wish.
The Problem of Authority - the notion that there is an authority that is binding on all us is foreign. That Christianity should claim to speak on God’s authority through his word is unacceptable.

What should be our response to these challenges? Ruling out fear, judgment, retreat, and separation, Barrs commends three responses:

Prayer for the Spirit’s conviction, for laborers to be sent, for open doors to speak the gospel, and for courage and clarity to speak.
Love our neighbors and count it as a blessing to receive their ridicule, turning the other cheek and serving through giving of ourselves to them.
Be prepared to speak his word with “grace,” “respect,” and “gentleness” (Colossians 4:5-6; 1 Peter 3:15-16)

Why Live Simply?

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0000

Channeling Randy Alcorn

In a previous post I wrote about the “rich” verses of the Bible and how pretty much everyone living in America ought to be applying these passages to themselves first and foremost. Today, I read the following in Randy Alcorn’s excellent book Money, Possessions, and Eternity:

“There’s no room for making wealth a source of security, or for lacking generosity or hospitality, or for an unwillingness to share. Still, Paul leaves a door open for Christian to be “rich in this present world” - but only if they carefully follow the accompanying guidelines related to their open-handed use of that wealth. The rich are not told they must take a vow of poverty. They are told essentially to take a vow of generosity. They are to be rich in good deeds, quick to share, and quick to part with their assets for kingdom causes. In doing so, they will lay up treasures in heaven. “Who are these “rich,” and how rich are they? Nearly everyone reading this book is rich, both by first-century standards and by global standards today. As of 2002, two-thirds of all countries had a per capita income less than 10 percent of America’s.

“If you made only $1,500 last year, that’s more than 80 percent of the people on the earth. Statistically, if you have sufficient food, decent clothes, live in a house or apartment, and have a reasonably reliable means of transportation, you are among the top 15 percent of of the world’s wealthy. If you have any money saved, a hobby that requires some equipment or supplies, and live in your own home, you are in the top 5 percent of the world’s wealthy.

“A youth pastor told me, “You can’t really talk to kids about giving, because they don’t have any money.” One look at their cars, clothes, video games, concerts, movies, fast foot, visits to Starbucks, and so on clearly says otherwise. In fact, even without counting the possessions that Mom and Dad buy for them, the average Christian teenager in America has $1,500 disposable cash income - far more than most adults in the world.

“We must lay aside our illusions and realize that when Scripture speaks of the rich it is not talking about “them” but “us.””

Living Simply

Following this, Alcorn exhorts us that there are numerous ways to live more simply and provides some compelling reasons why we should:

We should live more simply - and give more generously - because heaven is our home. This is our temporary residence and we shouldn’t dedicate most of our time, energy, and money on things that don’t last.
We should live more simply - and give more generously - because it frees us up and shifts our center of gravity. Our life would begin to center on God and not our possessions, breaking the grip of materialism.
We should live more simply - and give more generously - because we’re God’s pipeline. We are the vehicle that God uses to bring blessing to a needy world. God gives us more than we need so that we may be generous.
We should live more simply - and give more generously - because of the reward we’ll receive in heaven. Jesus provides this motivator (Matt. 6:20). If you’re seeking to make an investment, consider what has the greatest and longest lasting returns.
We should live more simply - and give more generously - because of the dire spiritual need of the world. Alcorn quotes John Piper: “Three billion people today are outside Jesus Christ. Two-thirds of them have no viable Christian witness in their culture. If they are to hear - and Christ commands that they hear - then cross-cultural missionaries will have to be sent and paid for. All the wealth needed to send this new army of good news ambassadors is already in the church…”
We should live more simply - and give more generously - because of the world’s dire physical needs. The biblical pattern is to see a need and give to meet it. If God has entrusted with more than we need (which he has) then we should live on less in order to give to those in need. This means keeping our income above our means, but consuming less of it and giving more of it.

Was Jesus born in a barn? Probably not...

Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:40:00 +0000

Questioning the Tradition

This time of year we get to reflect on the glorious message of our Savior’s birth, sent into the world to save us from our sins and to take his place as creation’s rightful King. The basic contours of the traditional Christmas story are commonly known, even among those who are not Christians. Three wise men, shepherds in mid-winter, baby Jesus in a barn with animals, and of course, that crusty old innkeeper who wouldn’t give Joseph and his laboring wife a place to stay (or in some accounts offered up his stable out of generosity!). But is the traditional story an accurate portrayal of the biblical story and is realistic given the historical and cultural setting? Kenneth Bailey, author of Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes says no, and offers a compelling argument that our understanding of the Christmas story depends more on later embellishments and tradition than on the biblical accounts themselves. He suggests 5 critical flaws in the traditional story:

Joseph was returning to the village of his origin. In the Middle East, historical memories are long, and the extended family, with its connection to its village of origin, is important. In such a world a man like Joseph could have appeared in Bethlehem, and told people, “I am Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, the son of Levi” and most homes in town would have been open to him.

Joseph was from the family of King David, a family so famous in Bethlehem that the town was apparently known by locals as “the city of David.” Being of that famous family, Joseph would have been welcome anywhere in town.

In every culture a woman about to give birth is given special attention. Simple rural communities the world over always assist one of their own women in childbirth regardless of the circumstances. Are we to imagine that Bethlehem was an exception? Was there no sense of honor in Bethlehem?

Mary had relatives in a nearby village. A few months prior to the birth of Jesus, Mary had visited her cousin Elizabeth “in the hill country of Judea” and was welcomed by her. Bethlehem was located in the center of Judea, meaning that they would have been but a short distance from Zechariah and Elizabeth. If Joseph had failed to find shelter in Bethlehem he would naturally have turned to Zechariah and Elizabeth.

Joseph had adequate time to make arrangements. Luke 2:4 says that Joseph and Mary “went up from Galilee to Judea,” and verse 6 states, “while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.” The average Christian thinks that Jesus was born the same night the holy family arrived, hence Joseph’s haste and willingness to accept any shelter, even the shelter of a stable. Traditional Christmas pageants reinforce this idea year after year.

He then proceeds to document how many of our traditional understandings actually originate with 3rd century expansion of the gospel accounts known as The Protoevangelium of James. So what about the manger and the inn?

Where was the manger?

In the Middle East, traditional village homes would often only have two rooms. One room would serve as the guest room, and the other was the main living area where the family ate, slept, and lived. Except for the homes of the wealthy, most animals would be kept inside the houses of their owners. They would be brought in at night for warmth and protection and then taken outside in the morning. In the main living room near the door, there would be an area blocked off and designated for the animals, including mangers dug into the floor where the animals could eat. This type of setup is seen in the Middle East even to the current century and is consistent with other biblical passages (such as Judges 11:29-40; Luke 13:10-17). It has been understood by Middle Eastern scholars for more than a century that Luke 2:7 is referring to a family living room with mangers cut into the floor at one end.

What about the Inn?

So, if Jesus was born in the living room of a typical middle Easter village home, how do we account for the language of an “inn” used in Luke 2:7? Bailey writes:

“There is a trap in the traditional language. ‘No room in the inn’ has taken on the meaning of ‘the inn had a number of rooms and all were occupied.’…But the Greek word does not refer to ‘a room at the inn’ but rather to ‘space’ as in ‘there is no space on my desk for my new computer.’… The Greek word in Luke 2:7 that is commonly translated ‘inn’ is katalyma. This is not the ordinary word for a commercial inn… [The word pandocheion (to receive all), as used in Luke 10:25-37, is the common Greek term for commercial inn and] was so widely known across the Middle East that over the centuries it was absorbed as a Greek loan word into Armenian, Coptic, Arabic and Turkish with the same meaning - a commercial inn… Literally, katalyma is simply ‘a place to stay’ and can refer to many types of shelters. The three that are options for this story are inn (the English translation tradition), house (the Arabic biblical tradition of more than one thousand years), and guest room (Luke’s choice). Indeed, Luke used this key term on one other occasion in his gospel, where it is defined in the text itself…[c.f. Luke 22:10-12] Here, the key word, katalyma, is defined; it is “an upper room,” which is clearly a guest room in a private home. This precise meaning makes perfect sense when applied to the birth story. In Luke 2:7 Luke tells his readers that Jesus was placed in a manger (in the family room) because in that hoome the guest room was already full.” (32)

This account is confirmed by the account of the shepherds. The lowest of the social classes were the first to be informed of the Savior’s birth. They were told that the King of the Jews would be found wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. In other words, he was in lowly conditions just like theirs, in a typical peasant village home. Bailey poses an interesting question - if the Shepherds had encountered Mary and Joseph in a filthy stable, desperate and scared, would they have left “praising God for all they had heard and seen” or would they more likely have taken them and moved them into their own homes? Later, when the wise men arrived, Matthew reports that they “entered the house” which is consistent with a birth in a private home.

My favorite books of 2012

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 01:29:00 +0000

Of all the books I read this year, these are my top 11. They may or may not be the best books, but they are the ones I enjoyed reading the most.

Reformed Dogmatics (Volumes I & II) by Herman Bavinck - an outstandingly clear, historically aware, and thought-provokingly deep systematic theology. I’m looking forward to reading Volumes III and IV in 2013.
Surprised By Oxford: A Memoir by Carolyn Weber - a delight to read.
From the Garden to the City: The Redeeming and Corrupting Power of Technology by John Dyer - an eye-opening look at how technology changes us. Backed by strong knowledge of media ecology.
Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction by John Frame - The best concise introduction to Christian apologetics.
David Copperfield by Charles Dickens - I can’t believe I waited so long to read this.
The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God by Tim Keller - The best book on marriage out there. I dare you to find a better one.
Kingdom through Covenant by Peter Gentry and Steven Wellum - a brilliant work of Biblical Theology.
Margin: Restoring Emotional, Physical, Financial, and Time Reserves to Overloaded Lives by Richard Swenson - still working on applying it.
How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels by N.T. Wright - I always enjoy reading Wright and this was no exception.
Political Visions and Illusions: A Survey and Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies by David Koyzis - a penetrating analysis and critique of the prevalent ideologies including dismantling some of my own.
Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning by Nancey Pearcey - carrying forward the torch of Francis Schaeffer, this is a must read.

Got Margin?

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0000

When I was a couple chapters into Richard Swenson’s book Margin: Restoring Emotional, Physical, Financial, and Time Reserves to Overloaded Lives, I was already convinced that both his diagnosis and prescription were on target. It is self-evidently true in my own life and in the lives of those I observe around me. The modern world, with all of the benefits of progress and its great comforts, has brought us to the brink of overload and then kicked us over.

He begins by painting a picture of “marginless” vs margin:

Marginless is being thirty minutes late to the doctor’s office because you were twenty minutes late getting out of the bank because you were ten minutes late dropping the kids off at school because the care ran out of gas two block from the gas station - and you forgot your wallet.

Margin on the other hand, is having breath left at the top of the staircase, money left at the end of the month, and sanity left at the end of adolescence.

Marginless is the baby crying and the phone ringing at the same time; margin is Grandma taking the baby for the afternoon.

Marginless is being asked to carry a load five pounds heavier than you can lift; margin is a friend to carry half the burden.

Marginless is not having time to finish the book you’re reading on stress; margin is having the time to read it twice.

Marginless is fatigue; margin is energy.

Marginless is red ink; margin is black ink.

Marginless is hurry; margin is calm.

Marginless is anxiety; margin is security.

Marginless is culture; margin is counterculture.

Marginless is the disease of the new millennium; margin is its cure.

Progress This generation has seen an unparalleled exponential growth in progress. It has helped us to eliminate many problems that plagued former generations - access to food, health, warmth, education, affluence, leisure, entertainment, convenience, and comfort. Despite enjoying unprecedented wealth and progress in our society, we are generally unfulfilled, overwhelmed, and discontent. The symptoms vary from person to person, but the problem is pervasive. Swenson argues that the lack of margin in our lives is the natural consequence of progress:

Progress differentiates our environment, bringing more and more of everything faster and faster. It is impossible for progress to give us less and less slower and slower.
The spontaneous flow of progress is toward increasing stress, change, complexity, speed, intensity, and overload.
All humans have physical, mental, emotional, and financial limits that are relatively fixed.
The profusion of progress is on a collision course with human limits.
On the unsaturated side of their limits, humans can be open and expansive. On the saturated side of these limits, the rules of life totally change.

He goes on to emphasize that progress is not inherently bad, but that there is a fundamental flaw in the way we’ve defined and approached progress. Humans have needs in five environments (1) Physical - the material world, (2) Cognitive

the intellectual world, (3) Social - the societal world, (4) Emotional - the psychological world, (5) Spiritual - God. Our modern progress has centered on 1 and 2, while causing pain to 3-5. We need to redefine the measure of true progress to include all 5 environments, reorienting our priorities around the most important foundations - healthy relationships with others, with ourselves, and with God.

Stress and Overload Stress is an important part of life and is the normal result of change. Stress spurs action and creativity. However, it also takes a toll on us mentally and physically, and too much of it can lead to health problems and burnout. Our society faces a daunting number of stressors at an intensity that no other generation has faced. Some of the contemporary stressors are high amounts of change, greater mobility, increased and increasingly unmet expectations, time pressure, work, fear, lack of supportive relationships, increased competition, and consistent frustration. The effects of this stress are numerous and varied:

Psychological: Depression, withdrawal, apathy, mental fatique, anxiety, negative thinking, difficulty deciding, worry, impatience, forgetfulness, confusion.
Physical: Rapid pulse, palpitations, blood pressure, hyperacidity, ulcers, irritable bowel, tightening muscles, headaches, weight changes, immune system effects, fatigue, rashes, insomnia, shortness of breath.
Behavioral: Irritation, temper, changes in eating and sleeping, accidents, shopping, drug use, alcohol, cigarettes.

When we have reached our limits, burnout occurs.

Overload is simply the taking on of more than we can bear. We all have physical, performance, emotional, and mental limits. The physical ones are usually acknowledged because they are obvious, but the others are less often recognized. Overload happens when we exceed those limits, whether it be by pushing our performance too far, taking on too many burdens in our desire to help others, or becoming overloaded with information and mentally short-circuiting. Since our limits are not always obvious, overload can sneak up on us, and just like the straw on the camel’s back, the thing that breaks us may not be all that significant on its own.

Some examples of overload that we face:

Activity - trying to do too much, and losing the pleasure of anticipation and reminiscence.
Change
Choice
Commitment - overbooked and unable to say no.
Debt
Expectations
Hurry
Information - buried by data. ”A single edition of the New York Times contains more information than a seventeenth century Britisher would encounter in a lifetime.”
Media - 24/7 news, television that is watched 55 hrs/week, and more books per capita than ever before.
Noise
People - Crowding vs. true community
Possessions - More “things per person” than any other time in history
Technology - Devices to learn and maintain
Traffic - More cars per family than drivers
Work - Total family work hours often exceeding 80 hrs/week

Restoring Margin and Health

After laying out the problem, Swenson spends the remaining 10 chapters giving immensely practical advice for restoring margin to four areas: Emotional health, Physical health, Time, and Finances. The goal of this margin is to find health through contentment, simplicity, balance and rest. Our purpose is not just to have time or money to spend on ourselves, but the reverse - to be free, available, and equipped to give of ourselves in loving service to others. It is to restore the prior of the transcendent over the trivial, to foster our relationships with God and other people. Essentially, restoring margin is an exhortation that we crucify to ourselves the idols and slave masters of wealth and progress, and return to living our creaturely life within the guidelines set by our loving Creator.

Psalm 111

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0000

In Hebrew, Psalm 111 is an acrostic poem in which the first letter of each line proceeds sequentially through the alphabet. I’ve attempted to reproduce that in English verse.

Praise the Lord!
All of my heart, with joy it will sing
Bless the LORD with praise and thanksgiving
Come with me to bless, all you upright
Dramatic works reveal his great might
Enticing us to joyful study
Filled with great splendor and majesty
God’s righteousness endures for all time
He brings his works to renew our mind
In him, our God, is grace and mercy
Joy fills with fear, and he meets our need
Kindness and love he will always keep
Let all see his power, high and deep
Made known as we receive the nations
Now see him faithful, just, and patient
On his precepts, as on solid ground
Powerfully established and sound
Quietly in faith to be obeyed
Redemption’s coming – be not dismayed
Salvation by an unchanging oath
Truly holy, awesome - he is both
Under fear of him, wisdom begins
Viewing life rightly, his Word within
Walking in knowledge with him as first
Xeric without him, he quenches thirst
Yes, in the LORD alone is our life
Zealously bringing an end to strife
Praise the LORD, forever and ever!

You are the "rich in this world"

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 03:38:00 +0000

During our Life Group bible study this evening, a friend made a very insightful point: Jesus said it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, and our society is very much that rich man.

This is true. We are the rich man, and in many ways the job of an evangelist is more difficult in the affluence of the first world than in the poorest and most pagan of societies. The false god of mammon has more of a stronghold on people than the false gods of the animists. Taking it a step further, what about how we as first world Christians read our Bibles? Since “rich” is a relative term, it is usually applied to those who are above us on the economic ladder. The “rich” are those with “wealth.” When American Christians read the message that Scripture has for the rich, to whom should we apply it?

Ourselves.

If you are above the poverty line in the U.S., you are among the richest 15% of the world’s population. If you make $48,000 a year or more, you are the top 1% of the world. Just because we don’t feel “rich” doesn’t mean we aren’t. The lack of discretionary funds does not equal poverty. There are many millionaires who are saddled with debt because they are unable to live within their means. This doesn’t make them poor (at least financially), it just makes them poor stewards. The fact that we have to stretch to keep up with the Jones’ (or the general expectations of society) doesn’t justify our stretching. I think we need to begin pointing the mirror back on ourselves as individuals and corporately as churches and begin putting ourselves into those “rich” passages.

“As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.” (1 Timothy 6:17-19, ESV)

It is not wrong to be rich, and the Bible does not prescribe that those who are rich in this world need to make themselves not rich. However, it does give commands as to how the rich should live and use their riches. If I am unable to obey those commands, despite being rich, then I need to examine my life and determine why it is I cannot. Likewise, the same introspection should happen on a church and even national level.

This website puts our wealth into perspective: http://www.globalrichlist.com/

It also provides some challenging facts: “$8 could buy you 15 organic apples OR 25 fruit trees for farmers in Honduras to grow and sell fruit at their local market.

$30 could buy you an ER DVD Boxset OR a First Aid kit for a village in Haiti.

$73 could buy you a new mobile phone OR a new mobile health clinic to care for AIDS orphans in Uganda.

$2400 could buy you a second generation High Definition TV OR schooling for an entire generation of school children in an Angolan village.”

Now, there is no doubt that these things really are relative to an extant - there are rich and poor in this country, those to whom the “rich” passages especially apply and those who benefit from the generosity. And it is certainly a proper recognition of God’s sovereign providence that we should give priority in our good works to those in close proximity to us. However, when blessed with a connected world such as ours, when faced with such immense need in the world, isn’t it proper that we examine our priorities and have the conversation - if we are indeed the rich in this world, what does God require of us?

Going Deeper in Bible Study

Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:28:00 +0000

I was recently asked my opinion on where to start for going more in depth in Bible study. My answer is generally applicable, so I’m reproducing it here. This is just my advice based on quite a bit of exposure to studying. Take it as nothing more than that.

1. Learn how to fish.

Spend some time learning sound methods biblical interpretation. It will pay off dividends in your studies and will keep you from many unfruitful detours in interpretation. Here are my suggestions (you would only need one to start):

Solid Introductions: Duvall & Hays, Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible Plummer, 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible

More Advanced and Detailed Treatments: Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation Kostenberger & Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology

2. Go fishing.

a. Get a solid overview of the whole Bible.

Just read through it cover to cover, and precede each book by getting an introduction of the contents, authorship, historical situation, critical issues, etc. Recommendation: Old Testament: Dillard & Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament: Second Edition New Testament: Carson & Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament

b. Dig deeper into specific books.

Utilize the tools you learned above to do exegesis of the text, understanding and applying its message. This is where commentaries come in handy to provide insight and aid in study. The recommendations here will vary depending on the book. I don’t suggest buying a complete commentary series, but finding the best for the specific book you’re studying. A good site to use is http://www.bestcommentaries.com

Some generally solid series are: Devotional/Pastoral The Bible Speaks Today (BST) The NIV Application Commentary (NIVAC) Intermediate Scholarly New American Commentary (NAC) Calvin’s Commentaries (Available free online) Advanced Scholarly New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT) New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT) Baker Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (BECOT) Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (BECNT)

For example, if you were studying Romans, I would recommend referencing either Thomas Schreiner’s BECNT commentary or Doug Moo’s NICNT commentary as you work through the text. Good scholarly commentaries can be pricey (upwards of $30 for a book), so that’s where the library becomes a big asset.

3. Eat and be nourished.

a. Apply.

Apply what you’re learning in the Bible to circumstances in your life, focus your prayers on God’s word and promises, and share your insights with others.

b. Learn Theology.

Theology in its best form is simply an explanation and defense of the Christian faith as taught in the Bible. Recommendations: Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine

A Modern Cosmogony

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0000

In the beginning there was something. Impersonal and unknown.
And at some point in time, that something spontaneously combusted.
And with a burst of energy, there was a hot, formless soup of quarks and leptons.
And there was energy and time, the first fraction of a second.

And the hot soup cooled and expanded, and the formless became formed.
And neutrons and protons, stars and galaxies took shape. Impersonal and uninterpreted.
And dark matter held everything together, and dark energy spread everything apart.
And there was energy and time, 9 billion years.

And the dark matter combined with gas and dust to form a rocky mass.
And with decay and radiation, explosion and upheaval, the mass took shape.
And the surface cooled to a rock, and water collected in basins. Impersonal and unseen.
And there was energy and time, 1 billion years.

And the surface of the rock brought forth proteins and enzymes.
And proteins and enzymes gathered into cells containing information.
And life happened, driven by the information, building and reproducing. Impersonal and unguided.
And there was energy and time, 3.7 billion years.

And the cells reproduced and mutated, increasing in complexity.
And with mutation and natural selection, time and chance, animal life evolved.
And the information mutated to produce consciousness. Personal and self-aware.
And there was energy and time, several million years.

And the consciousness reproduced and filled the earth.
And it subdued and exercised rule over every living thing.
And the consciousness saw all that existed and its origin,
No meaning and no significance, no good and no evil - no “ought,” only “is.”
And there was energy and time.

Were Jesus and the Early Christians Mostly Poor?

Sun, 04 Nov 2012 22:52:00 +0000

“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.” (2 Cor. 8:9)

It’s a well established theological truth - The Lord Jesus, who existed eternally as the Son of God, owner of all creation, rich in every possible sense of the word, became poor for our sakes, taking on the weakness and poverty of human nature and enduring humiliation and suffering rejection and crucifixion at the hands of the very people he came to save. Through this sacrificial suffering he redeemed a people for himself who would become co-heirs with him in the kingdom of God. This truth is recounted in numerous places throughout the Bible (c.f. for example Philippians 2:5-11; John 17).

But what about Jesus’s earthly life? The popular conception is that he was born into poor, humble circumstances, recruited disciples from similar roots, and that the spread of early Christianity was mainly accomplished through the lower classes of society. In his book, The Triumph of Christianity, sociologist and historian Rodney Stark argues against this view, making the case that Jesus came from a moderately well-off family, and a large proportion of his supporters and audiences would have been among the privileged classes.

Not many of you…

He begins by addressing the “irrefutable proof” of 1 Cor. 1:26, noting the obvious implication that if not many we’re wise, powerful, or of noble birth, then undoubtedly some were.

“Given what a minuscule fraction of persons in the Roman Empire were of noble birth, it is quite remarkable that any of the tiny group of early Christians were of the nobility. This raises the possibility that like many other religious movements, Christianity also began as a movement of the privileged.” (89)

Jesus

Was Jesus born into a poor family? Stark thinks not, given that his parents apparently owned property in Capernaum as well as Nazareth, and that they could afford to travel every year to Jerusalem for Passover (Luke 2:41). Moreover, there is evidence that Jesus was a well-educated rabbi, whose carpenter trade was “in keeping with the traditional Jewish practice that a rabbi always learned a trade to fall back on” (90). The imagery and examples that Jesus used would have often been meaningless to those not exposed to wealth, making it likely that at least Jesus’s audiences would have been drawn from among the upper classes.

The Disciples

There is evidence in the Gospels that many of the disciples were of privilege. For example, James and John left behind hired servants when they abandoned their fishing business to their father (Mark 1:20). The same could be said of Andrew and Peter, who were business partners with them. Peter may have had houses is both Bethsaida and Capernaum, and Mark’s mother owned a large house in Jerusalem. Matthew was a tax collector, who “were hated; but they were powerful and affluent” (91). He cites additional examples of the wealthy involved with Jesus:

“Zacchaeus was a chief tax collector and very rich. He was honored to have Jesus as his guest (Luke 19:1-10). Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue, came to Jesus seeking help for his daughter (Luke 8:40-56). Joseph of Arimathea was an early convert and very wealthy (Matt. 27:57). Joanna, the wife of Chuza who was steward of Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, was also an early convert and a generous contributor to the support of Jesus and his disciples (Luke 8:3). Susanna was another wealthy woman who helped finance Jesus (Luke 8:3).” (91)

Paul

The background of the apostle Paul is well-known - Roman citizen, a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee, and a student under the famous Rabbi Gamaliel. As with Jesus, Paul’s tentmaker trade is likely in keeping with traditional rabbinic practice, and Stark points out that someone “who is born to manual labor does not speak self-consciously of ‘laboring with my own hands.’” Paul’s followers indicate many of privilege, including the wealthy merchant Lydia, Erastus the city treasurer in Corinth, Gaius, Crispus, and Theophilos. One scholar’s research indicated that of 91 names mentioned in association with Paul, a third of them have names indicating Roman citizenship, which is “a startlingly high proportion.”

None of this is to deny that Christianity attracted large number of lower classes as well, particularly among the servants and the slave populations, but that the privileged classes were over-represented in early Christianity compared to the population at large. Stark cites evidence from the second and third centuries to indicate that this continued to be the case.

Literacy

Along with the idea of a poverty-stricken early Christianity, Stark tears down the notion that Jesus was illiterate and the leaders of the early Church were mostly an uneducated bunch. He discusses evidence that

“strongly suggests that the Gospels were the end product of a faith that was set down in writing from the very start. It seems nearly certain that at least some of Jesus’s words were written down when they were spoken. It seems even more certain that the early evangelists, including Paul, possessed and often referred to written materials…which helps to explain the variations and differences across the gospels. As for the latter, they were written to be read, not only by the emerging clergy, but by rank-and-file Christians!” (99)

As for the claim that Jesus was illiterate? Only if you ignore the gospels (the source of all of our information about Jesus), such as Luke 4:16-17 and his regular prefacing of exchanges with, “have you not read?”

History

Stark draws on other periods of history to demonstrate that new religious movements typically start with those in privilege, and this appears to be the case in Christianity as well. He gives some examples:

“It must also be recognized that the privileged are in a position to act on their spiritual dissatisfactions and desires in a way that the poor are not: they have visibility, influence, experience, and means. That the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel were both born into wealth and the priesthood gave them initial credibility. As he founded the Waldensians, Waldo, a rich merchant of Lyon, had the funds to commission a French translation of the Gospels and the experience needed to administer an ascetic movement that attracted many other rich followers. John Wycliffe launched the lollard movement without stirring from his rooms at Oxford; it was enough that he published an English translation of the Bible and proposed that the church pursue “apostolic poverty.” Merchants and members of the nobility took it from there. Jan Hus was the personal chaplain of the Queen of Bohemia and thus able to recruit followers from the nobility on a face-to-face basis. Martin Luther was a professor and so prominent in church affairs that he was sent to Rome to make appeals on behalf of the Augustinian Vicar-General. Ulrich Zwingli’s parents bought him a parish. During his youth in Noyon, John Calvin enjoyed the sponsorship of the local noblemen, and while a student in Paris he was assigned the income from several ecclesiastical posts. The university of Paris not only trained Calvin as a theologian, but perfected the rhetorical skills that enabled him to achieve political power in Geneva from whence he mounted religious campaigns in many parts of Europe. No matter how other worldly their outlook, to succeed, religious movements must deal effectively with complex worldly affairs.” (103)

Given the picture Stark paints of early Christianity, it’s not unreasonable to see 2 Cor. 8:9 in a different light, with Jesus not only giving up heavenly riches, but giving up material comforts in this life as well to become poor and condemned for our sakes, that we might be rich in him. It’s also a lesson that we should not despise the positions and places where God has put us, but seek to use whatever resources and influence we have to bring him honor and glory.

9.5 Theses in Honor of Reformation Day

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 02:51:00 +0000

In honor of Reformation Day, I offer 9.5 indications of a need for reformation (both personal and corporate) and a challenge for each of them.

1. Prosperity theology

Our God owns all things and we can confidently trust him to supply our needs, but we are not called to confess a theology of health, wealth, and comfort, but rather a theology of humility, suffering, and faith, where an abundance of joy in Christ will overflow in a wealth of generosity even in the midst of severe affliction and extreme poverty.

2. Worldly priorities

As citizens of another kingdom, our priorities should be those of our King, and this involves a restructuring of life, schedule, and finances around the goal of seeing the name of Christ magnified in the obedience of faith among all nations.

3. Unworldly priorities

Christianity is not a faith of seclusion that provides us an escape from this world or addresses part of our lives, but one that brings us to the understanding that the Christian is a whole person, that all of creation is to be redeemed, and that faith drives activity in every area of our lives, and this culminates in a recognition that all work is God’s work and should be pursued as such.

4. Fleshly pursuit of change

We must acknowledge that a society is only as wicked as the hearts of its members, and that a Church is only as effective as the purity of its gospel and the sincerity of its prayer.

5. Not speaking on behalf of all oppressed

We are responsible for being a prophetic witness on behalf of all who are oppressed by systemic evils, silenced by violators of conscience, or slain for the sake of wars of power or idols of convenience.

6. Compromise for the sake of relevance

Rather than compromising on the truth and the power of our confession to fit in with the crowd, we need a willingness to be the oddball, faithfully bearing our Master’s shame, while blowing up every false stereotype in the process.

7. Prayerlessness

A life and community devoted to adoring God in prayerful worship, and persistently interceding on behalf of one another and the entire community is the calling of the Church.

8. Abandoning Biblical authority

We must be vigorously defending the authority of Scripture as the sufficient and sole rule of faith and life, and the final arbiter of all disputes, advocating sound principles of interpretation and application, rejecting both the hermeneutical tricks of those who would undermine its authority while still pledging allegiance and the non-contextual proof-texting of those who by their misuse bring Scripture itself into disrepute.

9. Not being explicit about the Gospel

May we never assume or presume that Christ’s perfectly obedient life, substitutionary death for our sins, and new creation launching resurrection and exaltation are an unspoken understanding, but always attempt to make it explicit and endeavor to find new ways to apply that reality to life.

9.5 Not being explicit about the whole Gospel

We must commit to avoid reducing the gospel to a timeless, abstract truth about sin and forgiveness, conversion and personal salvation, four spiritual laws and a sinners prayer, by divorcing the story’s climax from the story as God has told it - that story of Adam, Abraham, Israel, Covenant, Sin, the Messiah, the redemption of the nations, and the restoration of Creation.

The 16 (or 22) most influential books in my life

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:06:00 +0000

How do you measure the impact that a book has on you? There have been many times that I’ve finished a book profoundly moved, impressed, or otherwise feeling that I have just read something significant, but looking back later could not identify any substantial influence that the book had on me in terms of my life, thought, beliefs, or actions. At the same time, there are countless things that I’ve read whose ideas have, over time and without any conscious realization on my part that it was happening, become my ideas and contribute to the way in which I view and interact with the world. In fact, I suspect that happens more or less with everything I read, either in adopting or rejecting certain ideas put forward by the author. All this is to say that it would be very hard, if not impossible to truly identify the most influential books. Instead, what I have done below is identify the books (outside of the Bible) that I remember and recognize as having an influence on who I am today, each in their own time and in their own way. This is not a list of my favorite books, or even necessarily ones that I would recommend first on a given subject (though some are both). It’s hard to rank them, so they are listed in roughly chronological order based on the time they reached me.

World Almanac and Book of Facts

Growing up, I was a geek for statistics, geography, sports, history, and lists on every other possible subject. For this reason, I ingested almost as much of the World Almanac as I did McDonald’s Big Mac cheeseburgers growing up. It’s hard to overstate how important this little oddity has been in my life. A large number of those facts and statistics have stuck with me over the years and contribute greatly to my understanding on issues in the world, even in areas (like sports) where I don’t keep up like I used to. I actually ended up buying a new edition last year because I was began to notice that my information bank was becoming outdated. Now, whether I’ll be able to actually consume this information like I did as a child remains to be seen.

The American Experiment (3 Vol.):

The Vineyard of Liberty

The Workshop of Democracy

**The Crosswinds of Freedom**

by James MacGregor Burns

This was the first complete history of the United States I ever read, and it was enjoyable and enlightening. Written from a somewhat liberal/progressive perspective, Burns covered all of the major events of U.S. history, with enough personal close-ups and in-depth analysis to keep it interesting. It was this series that gave me a thorough “big picture” which subsequent historical books would enlighten and revise.

“Life had been hard enough during the Revolution, but independence had first brought a flush of prosperity, then worse times than ever. The people and their governments alike struggled under crushing debts. Much of the Revolutionary specie was hopelessly irredeemable. People were still paying for the war through steep taxes. The farmers in central and western Massachusetts felt they had suffered the most, for their farms, cattle, even their plows could be taken for unpaid debts. Some debtors had been thrown into jail and had languished there, while family and friends desperately scrounged for money that could not be found. Out of the despair and suffering a deep hatred had welled in the broad farms along the Connecticut and the settlements in the Berkshires. Hatred for the sheriffs and other minions of the law who flung neighbors into jail. Hatred for the judges who could sign orders that might wipe out a man’s entire property. Hatred for the scheming lawyers who connived in all this, and battened on it. Hatred above all for the rich people in Boston, the merchants and bankers who seemed to control the governor and the state legislature. No single leader mobilized this hatred. Farmers and laborers rallied around local men with names like Job Shattuck, Eli Parsons, Luke Day. Dan Shays emerged as the most visible leader, but the uprising was as natural and indigenous as any peasants’ revolt in Europe. The malcontents could not know that history would call them members of “Shays’s Rebellion.” They called themselves Regulators.” - Vineyard of Liberty

The Great Dream by Just Another Christian

Although I have ultimately come to reject the approach that this book takes and disagree with much of the content and conclusions that the author reaches, there is no denying that it had a big influence on my early life. By far the most important was forcing me to face the Scriptures on their own terms and be willing to adjust and change my life and views to fit them rather than the reverse. That, and the idea that the Christian faith has a history that extends back 2000 years so we would be wise to learn from and get to know these earlier Christians, are ideas I took away from this book that have had a profound impact on me.

“Theological debate is treated like a game with no stakes: a game, that is played by people who are more concerned with feeling like they won an argument than with learning or proving any Truth. There is no fear of God in these people: they obviously don’t believe there is a real God “out there” somewhere Who is looking in and judging the matter, and Who will eventually get around to vindicating somebody and repudiating somebody else. This apparent delay in the vindication of the Truth has given men the courage to despise the idea of truth, altogether.” - The Great Dream

Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners by John Bunyan

This autobiographical piece by John Bunyan was a gift from God to me at the right time. As a young Christian, facing various spiritual pressures and conflicts and not being connected to a church body which exists for the purpose of strengthening believers against such things, reading John Bunyan’s very similar account in his own life was a comfort to my soul.

“I was often much cast down, and afflicted in my mind therewith, yet could I not let go my sins: yea, I was also then so overcome with despair of life and heaven, that I should often wish, either that there had been no hell, or that I had been a devil; supposing they were only tormentors; that if it must needs be, that I went thither, I might be rather a tormentor, than be tormented myself.” - Grace Abounding

The Freedom of the Christian by Martin Luther

Again as a young Christian, struggling and floating between the Charybdis of an antinomian ethic and the Scylla of a legalistic Pharisaism, it was in Martin Luther’s well-known tract that I first found a resolution to the tension of faith and works, obedience and legalism, freedom and lawlessness. At this point in life, I probably would not describe things in the terms that Luther did and I don’t believe the apostle Paul did so as well, but it was just what I needed at the time. Moving on to a more robust view of grace and works may not have happened without it.

“A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one. Although these statements appear contradictory, yet, when they are found to agree together, they will be highly serviceable to my purpose. They are both the statements of Paul himself, who says: “Though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all” (1 Cor. ix. 19), and: “Owe no man anything, but to love one another.” (Rom. xiii. 8.) Now love is by its own nature dutiful and obedient to the beloved object. Thus even Christ, though Lord of all things, was yet made of a woman; made under the law; at once free and a servant; at once in the form of God and in the form of a servant.” - The Freedom of the Christian

Systematic Theology by Augustus Strong

This book constituted my first theological education and laid a very firm foundation for what followed. The very thorough discussions and cogent argumentation made this Systematic Theology one of the best available for most of the 20th century and is still a valuable reference today. Even at the time I did not accept all of his positions, but I learned more from him about positions he opposed than from many of those who advocate them.

“Christ’s omnipresence makes it possible for him to be united to, and to be present in, each believer, as perfectly and fully as if that believer were the only one to receive Christ’s fulness. As Christ’s omnipresence makes the whole Christ present in every place, each believer has the whole Christ with him, as his source of strength, purity, life; so that each may say: Christ gives all his time and wisdom and care to me. Such a union as this lacks every element of instability. Once formed, the union is indissoluble. Many of the ties of earth are rudely broken,—not so with our union with Christ,—that endures forever.

Since there is now an unchangeable and divine element in us, our salvation depends no longer upon our unstable wills, but upon Christ’s purpose and power. By temporary declension from duty, or by our causeless unbelief, we may banish Christ to the barest and most remote room of the soul’s house; but he does not suffer us wholly to exclude him; and when we are willing to unbar the doors, he is still there, ready to fill the whole mansion with his light and love.” - Systematic Theology

Internetworking with TCP/IP by Doug Comer

Routing TCP/IP Volume 1 by Jeff Doyle

These two books (in combination with much study and hard work!) contributed greatly to the development of my career, and I have very little doubt that I could have progressed as far as I have without the knowledge gained from them. I still tell any aspiring IT professionals today that one of the most valuable things you can do is learn TCP/IP and IP routing inside and out. It has paid back dividends over time.

Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell

Henry Hazlitt’s superb little book Economics In One Lesson is one that I wish was mandatory reading in all Junior High Schools. He sums up the lesson as: “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.” The rest of this book is spent fleshing this out with examples of how it is constantly ignored. Sowell’s book is a much more thorough introduction to Economics but takes the same principle to heart.

“The very thing that makes a modern industrial society so efficient and so effective in raising living standards–the constant quest for newer and better ways of getting work done and more goods produced–makes it impossible to keep on having the workers doing the same jobs in the same way.” - Basic Economics

Overcoming Sin and Temptation by John Owen

Outside of the Bible, no other book in my life has been so influential in learning about and engaging in the constant struggle against sin. It is a difficult book to read (though the modernized edition help a lot), but is worth every minute spend slowly working through it.

“Sin aims always at the utmost; every time it rises up to tempt or entice, might it have its own course, it would go out to the utmost sin in that kind. Every unclean thought or glance would be adultery if it could; every covetous desire would be oppression, every thought of unbelief would be atheism, might it grow to its head. Men may come to that, that sin may not be heard speaking a scandalous word in their hearts—that is, provoking to any great sin with scandal in its mouth; but yet every rise of lust, might it have its course, would come to the height of villainy: it is like the grave that is never satis?ed. And herein lies no small share of the deceitfulness of sin, by which it prevails to the hardening of men, and so to their ruin (Heb. 3:13)— it is modest, as it were, in its first motions and proposals, but having once got footing in the heart by them, it constantly makes good its ground, and presses on to some farther degrees in the same kind.” - Overcoming Sin and Temptation

Desiring God by John Piper

Not so much this book itself, but the ministry, preaching, conferences, and ideas that have emerged from it have been the source of much spiritual nourishment to my soul. I still remember the first message I heard from John Piper (How My Pastoral Ministry Shapes My Pulpit Ministry) and it was a watershed moment in my own spiritual life for a number of reasons. The overarching theme of Desiring God is: “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.”

The Hermeneutical Spiral by Grant Osborne

Basics of Biblical Greek by Bill Mounce

Deep Exegesis by Peter Leithart

Osborne and Mounce definitively shaped my approach to reading, understanding, and applying Scripture. That, combined with the Leithart’s insights into how the Biblical authors made powerful use of language and our tendency to underplay it, makes up my current method of study.

“For translators, commentators, preachers, and theologians, the idioms and cadences, the rhetoric and the tropes, the syntax and the vocabulary of the original have been reduced to mere vehicles for communicating that message. If the vehicle fails to reach its destination, we change vehicles. We substitute, add, or subtract words to make the Bible sound normal. We change idioms to be more familiar. We turn God’s names into generic terms of divinity. We fiddle with the Bible’s rhetoric so that it fits our rhetoric, rather than letting the Bible’s rhetoric shape ours. Once we think we have found the spirit of the text, we feel free to mold the letter as we will.

As the comparison of the two translations indicates, students of the Bible have not always treated the Bible this way. Older translators recognized that no translation can completely capture all the features of the original text. But the goal of Reformation and post-Reformation Bible translators was always to carry over as much of the original text as possible into the target text. When Tyndale found no word for a Hebrew concept, he invented one–atonement–which is having a remarkably fruitful career in the English language, not to mention English theology, psychology, anthropology, and political theory. When the KJV translators found the Hebrew redundant, they made the English redundant: ‘dying, you shall die.’ When they found a vulgarity, they (sometimes) kept it in English: a vulgar man is one who ‘pisseth against the wall.’ For most earlier translators, and for commentators, preachers, and Bible scholars, the original Bible set the agenda, while the target language and the target culture were expected to make room for it. They did not believe that the Bible needed to adjust to our prior concepts and institutions.

Scripture once transformed the world precisely because Bible students clung to the letter. Once the letter is reduced to a malleable vehicle, Scripture loses its potency. It no longer shapes our imaginations, our poetry, or our politics, because it is not allowed to say anything we do not already know.” - Deep Exegesis

The Epistle to the Romans by Douglas Moo

This is a biblical commentary on the book of Romans, and I certainly couldn’t say that reading through it on its own had a major influence on me, but it was the in-depth study of Romans that forever changed my view of the world, of Scripture, of the Old Testament, of Sin, of the Law, of Justification, of the Resurrection, of Israel, and so on. Moo’s meticulous analysis, commentary, and engagement with other commentators made him it a very helpful guide during the course my study.

“Confessing the gospel in our own day requires that we subscribe to Paul’s exalted view of Jesus; it is failure to do so that spawns many heresies. But Paul’s attention, as we have also seen, is especially on the activity of this Jesus: his coming to earth as the Messiah; his exaltation through resurrection to Lord of all; his dispensing power as the Son of God. It is what Jesus has done, not just who he is, that makes the gospel the “good news” that it is. But make no mistake: what Jesus has done cannot be severed from who he is. Ours is an age not too much interested in theology; but correct theology- in this case, the person of Jesus- is vital to salvation and to Christian living.” - The Epistle to the Romans

Decision Making and the Will of God by Garry Friesen

If there were a non-biblical book that I wished every Christian would read it would probably be this one or something like it. So many times I see Christians in such turmoil about the decisions and circumstances they face and their struggle to know God’s will. I think this book addresses the issue in the most biblical and practical way. The personal impact it has had on me is yet to be fully accounted for, but there have already been numerous (very important) occasions in my life where I have been forced to put my money where my mouth is and work out in daily life the theological found in this book.

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

What can I say? If only I had met you earlier, Jane, I would not have had to wait so long to experience such reading enjoyment. I’ve read every Austen novel and loved them all. Through this I learned the deep power of fiction and how a seemingly simple story can provide deep insight into human nature. For those who question the choice, you must understand - “Real Men Read Austen.”

““If Mr. Darcy is neither by honour nor inclination confined to his cousin, why is not he to make another choice? And if I am that choice, why may not I accept him?”

“Because honour, decorum, prudence, nay, interest, forbid it. Yes, Miss Bennet, interest; for do not expect to be noticed by his family or friends, if you wilfully act against the inclinations of all. You will be censured, slighted, and despised, by everyone connected with him. Your alliance will be a disgrace; your name will never even be mentioned by any of us.”

“These are heavy misfortunes,” replied Elizabeth. “But the wife of Mr. Darcy must have such extraordinary sources of happiness necessarily attached to her situation, that she could, upon the whole, have no cause to repine.”” - Pride and Prejudice

Who Made God? by Edgar Andrews

This delightfully humorous and quite scientific book made it into my hands as I was stressing over the debates - scientific, philosophical, or otherwise - regarding the questions of macro-evolution, intelligent design, human origins, creation, etc. This book decisively settled many issues for me and taught me much in the process. The author’s bio says, “Professor Edgar H. Andrews (BSc, PhD, DSc, FInstP, FIMMM, CEng, CPhys.) is Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London and an international expert on the science of large molecules.” This book is written by someone who knows what he’s talking about, and knows how to explain it well.

“My own speech centred on the thesis that, by their very nature, certain things cannot be explained by purely material causes. If we want to explain such things, I argued, we must look beyond and behind science to God, and this applies not only to the physical world but even more strongly to the human spirit and human experience. The four scientifically inexplicable things I raised were: (a) the origin of the universe; (b) the origin of the laws of nature; (c) the origin of life; and (d) the origin of mind and thought. As recently as 2007 Richard Dawkins on his web site accused me of ‘duplicity’ at the debate because, instead of presenting the arguments he had expected, I set out my stall on this higher philosophical ground. I think it rather put him off his stroke — though at the time, I must say, he was quite nice about it all (which may surprise those familiar with his more recent utterances). At various stages in the chapters that follow we are going to revisit my four points, beginning with the origin of the universe itself.

If the God of the Bible does indeed exist, the first consequence we would expect is that the ultimate origin of material things will never be explicable in material terms. In chapters 2 and 3 I fed you with the seeming impossibilities of modern physics, but we must now start looking at some things that really are impossible to explain without invoking non-scientific causes.

Of course, atheists (and even some theists) will immediately cry foul, declaring that just because scientific explanations are not currently available it doesn’t mean they never will be. Science is progressive and new discoveries are being made all the time, so that what seems scientifically impossible today may be scientifically explicable tomorrow. I recognize the force of this argument but intend to stand my ground. The claim that, given time, science will explain everything is simply the atheist’s version of the God of the gaps. The gaps in our knowledge can be plugged, they say, by future (but as yet unknown) scientific advances. Thus the ‘God of the gaps’ is simply replaced by the ‘future science of the gaps’ — same gaps, different deity. It’s what philosopher of science Karl Popper called ‘promissory materialism.’” - Who Made God?

Communion with the Triune God by John Owen

This book is last in the list but possibly first in importance. Another one of Owen’s, and another that can be difficult to read (not near as difficult as some of his other writings), but one whose sole purpose is to take the reader by the hand and guide them into the loving arms of the Triune God. It has been my experience that many Christians (myself included) spent far too much time dwelling on themselves than on the only One who can bring true peace, joy, and rest.

“And on this ground it is that if all the world should (if I may so say) set themselves to drink free grace, mercy, and pardon, drawing water continually from the wells of salvation; if they should set themselves to draw from one single promise, an angel standing by and crying, “Drink, O my friends, yea, drink abundantly, take so much grace and pardon as shall be abundantly sufficient for the world of sin which is in every one of you;” — they would not be able to sink the grace of the promise one hair’s breadth. There is enough for millions of worlds, if they were; because it flows into it from an infinite, bottomless fountain. “Fear not, O worm Jacob, I am God, and not man,” is the bottom of sinners’ consolation. This is that “head of gold” mentioned, Cant. v. 11 , that most precious fountain of grace and mercy. This infiniteness of grace, in respect of its spring and fountain, will answer all objections that might hinder our souls from drawing nigh to communion with him, and from a free embracing of him. Will not this suit us in all our distresses? What is our finite guilt before it? Show me the sinner that can spread his iniquities to the dimensions (if I may so say) of this grace. Here is mercy enough for the greatest, the oldest, the stubbornest transgressor, — “Why will ye die, O house of Israel?” Take heed of them who would rob you of the Deity of Christ. If there were no more grace for me than what can be treasured up in a mere man, I should rejoice [if] my portion might be under rocks and mountains.” - Communion with the Triune God

Some Random Memory of a High School Crush

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 02:45:00 +0000

It’s strange how a word, a picture, a smell, can bring to the front of your mind a memory that had long been filed away. All of us have a novel-worthy story wrapped up in the recesses of our memories, with details, plot lines, and drama that would leave Dickens impressed. Just now I’m reminded of a momentary high school crush, forgotten long ago but apparently forever seared into my memory. Not that my retelling itself would impress Dickens, but the story nonetheless. Oh, how much I adored her, and how much I wanted to be with her - though I had never left so much as a hint that it was so. Very outgoing, yet terribly shy is the only way to describe me at fourteen. In this case, my crush and I talked all the time since we shared many classes together. Yet it was hard to even imagine having the courage to ask her out, though I worked diligently at thinking about it. It crossed my mind that Valentine’s Day would be the ideal moment to make my love known and find out once and for all if my dreams would come true or be forever crushed in disappointment and rejection. That was it – I would buy her a Valentine and write my heart into it. Shortly after making this decision, I convinced myself that I was being delusional. I knew very well that I wasn’t going to buy her the Valentine, and I sure as sugar wasn’t going to give it to her. Who am I kidding, right? Right.

So Valentine’s Day came, and I proceeded to school empty handed. Partially relieved, and partially regretful, I worked my way through my classes until it was time to come to the first one with her_._ I wish I had a Valentine, but I’m so glad I don’t. It would be great to give it to her, but I know that I won’t. I guess I was still conflicted, but there certainly wasn’t any pressure. I just needed to keep my cool. We engage our normal pre-class banter and she looks extra bright, cheerful, and engaging with me today. Wait! Could she be expecting a Valentine from me? It’s not possible. As class goes on, her brightness and cheer seems to be fading. By the middle of class my sweet is nothing of the sort. Oh no! She was expecting something from me and she’s disappointed I didn’t give her anything. I know, right? Right.

Thankfully (or so I thought) my mouth was working faster than my brain and I whispered over to her, “Hey, I got you a Valentine…” She smiled and held her hand out expectantly. Oops!

“I forgot to bring it today.” Nice cover.

“Sure you did,” she grinned and went back to paying attention to class.

“I’ll bring it tomorrow.”

“Ok.”

Now what have I done? For the rest of the day I felt the pressure that I thought I had successfully avoided. Of course, it was possible that I could just buy the Valentine and give it to her without exposing any other feelings. I just couldn’t let myself do that. I really liked her. How could I possibly get that close and then chicken out. Somehow I made it through the rest of the day, but now I had another dilemma. I don’t actually have a Valentine’s card. Easy enough – I’ll go to the store and buy one. The only problem is that I was 14 and don’t have a way to get to the store. I’m not sure I remember correctly, but I think I persuaded my sister to take me at the cost of giving up my deep secret that I was buying a Valentine card.

One thing I’ve failed to mention is that Valentine’s Day fell on a Friday during this year, and I couldn’t muster up the courage to get a ride to the store until Saturday or Sunday. It seemed reasonable to me at the time that, given the amount of effort they put into promoting and selling Valentine’s paraphernalia that there was bound to be some excess stock waiting for me at the store. To my surprise - and terror – all of the displays had been removed and updated for the next marketing holiday. Finally, I tracked down a small stack of remaining cards in a corner. And – more terror – there was nothing left that was not gushy and romantic! Oh well, there was no going back now so I selected the one that had the greatest possibility of being stretched and construed as completely platonic should the need arise.

Now what was I to do? Should I write something to express my love, pour my heart out and hope for the best? Should I just say, “Happy Valentine’s Day” and carry on? I’m not sure exactly what I wrote anymore, but I think it was something truly cheesy along the lines of, “I like you. Would you be my Valentine?” I certainly wasn’t channeling Shakespeare or U2, but it was sincere.

And now, the day of destiny – my life would forever be changed, for good or for worse (or so I thought – and apparently so given the permanence of the memory). I don’t remember anything else about the day and I’m certain that if I did it would be that I didn’t learn a thing in class. As I arrived to the first class I had with her, I panicked. I can’t do this. I don’t need to do this. She never asked about the Valentine, and something seemed different. Something wasn’t right. I waited and waited, not listening to class and only lightly talking to her. Then the bell rang. Oh no!

“Here’s your Valentine.” Way to go, mouth!

“Oh, thanks ,” she grinned and headed out.

Whew! Relief and ecstasy! All of my cards were on the table, and I could put away that goofy poker face. It was up to her now. I hadn’t backed down and that by itself was an accomplishment. It certainly didn’t evidence any “game” on my part, but - as they say - you play the hand you’re dealt, not the one you wish you’d been dealt.

The next class I would have with her was after lunch. It was a delightful few hours. The feeling of making your love know to another, even if you’re not sure it will be returned, tends to lift the spirits. The expectation and excitement continued to build until we met again – and she handed me a note. A note! And it was long one, probably a whole page. This was height of my joy.

But something was not right. That sinking feeling in the gut, the one that tells you what you should be thinking even though your mind is not quite ready to admit to it yet – that’s what her demeanor caused for me. The note confirmed my fears. She was flattered by my interest, but she was already involved with someone else (who, incidentally, happened to be an old friend of mine from a different school, much cooler, much more attractive – small world, big heartbreak). And that was that. It certainly made things awkward for a little while, but I played it cool – no problem, just thought I’d ask. Right? Right.

This wasn’t the first time I had garnered up the courage to make someone of the fairer sex privy to my feelings for them, but perhaps the first time I’d done so without getting many hints in advance that the feeling would be mutual. So that pressure, along with the rejection undoubtedly contributed to this being a lasting memory. Such a minor incident, but for someone prone to shyness, it likely contributed to me being a bit gun shy going into my later high school and college years.

Thinking back to this time, and all that has transpired since, all I can say is, “Thanks be to God!”

1 Thessalonians 2:17-3:10

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:35:00 +0000

This section of the letter serves to demonstrate Paul’s the depth of Paul’s friendship with the Thessalonians and his concern for them. Rhetorically, by commending them in what they’ve done well this sets the stage for offering some correction and exhortation regarding Christian living.

2v17-18 – Being torn away, Paul desired to come visit them again, but was hindered by Satan

Why was Paul torn away?
- The account in Acts 17 describes the opposition instigated by the Jews in Thessalonica, where Paul and Silas were forced to leave quickly and unexpectedly.
The language used here is very passionate – we were “orphaned from you,” “endeavored with great desire” – literally “lusting” - to see you face to face, trying “again and again.” It is clear that Paul had a strong feeling of affection and friendship for the Thessalonians and he seeks to show it here. What is it about our day that such expressions are quite unheard of outside of romance and close family ties?
- Undoubtedly, some of it is cultural. It was not uncommon in Paul’s day for letters could contain an expression of longing to see the other person. In our day, even when such affection is present, it is often left unstated. However, the culture develops out of shared values whether expressed or implied. The fact that we are hesitant to make know such affection says something. What is the message? Where does it come from?
How did he know it was Satan? How did Satan hinder him?
- For example, in Acts 16 when Paul and Timothy wanted to go into Asia and then into Bithynia, both times they were prevented by the Holy Spirit. In this case, however he knows, it is clear that the opposition is Satanic.
- Possibly, since it was the Jews in the synagogue opposing them, that is who he is referring to. The very people who had considered themselves God’s servants were persecuting God’s servants and inhibiting their work.
- I think that is probably the most likely, but some commentators have suggested other ideas, such as a physical ailment which kept Paul from visiting, or the political situation in Thessalonica after the previous disturbance
Satan is actively working to impede the success and the spread of the gospel. He is also actively working to inhibit Christian fellowship. Was he successful here? How does Satan work today to hinder fellowship? What is the relationship between true Christian community and the growth of the gospel?
- Satan drives the persecution of the saints, and also seeks to Paul from ministering and encouraging them during their affliction. Despite the attempts to prevent the fellowship between Paul and the Thessalonians, and to afflict both by keeping them apart, Paul is able to connect with them again through the Timothy’s exhortation and encouragement.
  - We see Timothy engaging in similar ministry on behalf of Paul to the Philippians and the Corinthians.
- Today we see similar things – in many places, fear of persecution hinders Christians from coming together for fellowship. In this country the hindrances are more insidious. Through distractions of busy lives, entertainment, and a generally disconnected culture, we often end up in the same situation as if we were physically prevented from fellowshipping.
  What are some other things that can inhibit fellowship?
- The spread of the gospel and the community of saints are not two separate things, but are vitally connected. It is through the prayer, encouragement, teaching, discipleship, and support that Christians are equipped and sent out to carry the gospel into the world. And it is into a Christian community that the world is brought through the gospel.

2v19-20 – Paul’s hope and joy at Christ’s coming is tied up in the Thessalonians

What does it mean to say that you are our glory and our joy?
- Paul takes his calling seriously and views those for whom he labors as his reward and crown before the Lord. Cf. Philippians 4:1 - “Therefore, my brothers, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm thus in the Lord, my beloved.”
- “At some point in the future, believers will be evaluated with respect to their stewardship of the ministry entrusted to them by God. As Paul understands it, the basis of evaluation is not how hard he may have worked but the fruit he has produced. Thus the health and well-being of the Thessalonian congregation is of no small concern to Paul, for it offers public evidence of his success as God’s missionary. “He thus yearns for them in part because, as his converts, there steadfast loyalty to Christ means that his own life has counted for something.” (Holmes, NIVAC)
- C.f. Romans 15:17-18 – “In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed,”
- Paul’s boasting is in Jesus Christ and the work that Christ is accomplishing through him. It is not a selfish conceit but a boast in the accomplishments of another.
What would we have to believe about the importance of ministry and the seriousness of the task to be able to say what Paul says in v19-20?
- Consider 1 Corinthians 3:5-15 – “What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”
- Paul is a laborer working with the skills God has given him to build the temple of his Church on the foundation of Christ. If his work survives the day of judgment, then for that work he will receive a reward. Those works are the churches to whom he ministers.
- Sometimes we can adopt the Kantian mindset that all of the obedience, all of the service, all of the work that we do by God’s grace and for his kingdom ought to be done in a disinterested fashion, without concern for our own reward. In other words, we are most moral when we do our duty for duty’s sake and not because we stand to gain. The New Testament, however, will have none of that – and this passage is a clear example. Jesus and the apostles both appeal to reward as a motivation for obedience:
  - For example, in the sermon on the mount in Matthew:
    - Let your giving be in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. It’s not, “only give out of selfless duty or compassion,” but rather, “don’t give for the praise of men but for the praise of God.”
    - Likewise, let your prayer be in secret, and the Father who sees in secret will reward you.
    - The same is true for fasting.
  - Elsewhere in Colossians 3, Paul exhorts slaves to work heartily as to the Lord, knowing that from the Lord they will receive a reward.
  - In Hebrews 12:1-2, we see the example set by Jesus himself: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:1–2, ESV)
- When you pursue something selfishly or at the expense of others, it’s not the fact that you’re doing it out of self-interest that’s the problem, it’s the fact that you’re striving for a fleeting and ultimately unsatisfying reward which is really not in your interest at all, while forsaking the only lasting and truly satisfying reward. Instead, the Bible says pursue your highest good, pursue your ultimate and lasting pleasure, and that will only truly be found in Christ. It’s self-interested but not selfish, since it includes the greatest acts of giving yourself for the sake of others. The wisdom of the world, where the more you give the less you have, is turned on its head and the only lasting way to have is to give.

3v1-2 – Knowing their affliction and burdened with concern for their well-being, Paul sent Timothy in his place to exhort them.

How does Paul’s anxious concern for the Thessalonians mesh with his view of God’s sovereignty over all things?
- We know that Paul believed that God is absolutely sovereign over everything that happens. Statements like Ephesians 1:11, where he says that God is the one “who works all things according to the counsel of his will,” don’t come from any other belief. And yet we see Paul here with an anxious concern for the Thessalonians well-being and making ardent attempts to reverse his present circumstances and be able to see them. How do we reconcile these two things?
  - A healthy understanding of the distinction between God’s revealed will and his sovereign will
  - An understanding that God sovereignty is all encompassing, and includes the free actions of men, the desires, afflictions, and prayers of God’s people, and all other circumstances.
What can we learn about the relationship between our circumstances, God’s sovereignty, and our responses and reactions? How does this passage help guard against a cold fatalism?
- If you’ve ever heard the Ella Wheeler Wilcox poem “Whatever is – is best” – it is actually a fairly good perspective on viewing circumstances in light of eternity and trusting that the Sovereign Lord is bringing about a wise and perfect plan in the midst of chaos. However, it is very easy to translate “whatever is – is best” into a resigned fatalism, in which we view bad circumstances with a resigned – “well it must be God’s will.”
- One thing we can learn from this passage is that it is not biblical to resign in the face of circumstances – our God is the God who raises the dead, he is the one who comes to Israel’s rescue when she cries out for help. Against all the God’s of the nations, our God hears and answers and acts in history. He is not only the author of the story but he has written himself into as the central actor. We need a much more robust view of sovereignty than grim, fatalistic resignation.
- There is a difference between grumbling and complaining about your circumstances and crying out to the living God to change your circumstances. Not only that, but we work and we pray - we act, think, workaround obstacles and pursue obedience to God’s commands, all the while trusting that He is ultimately sovereign and guiding the outcome even in the ups and downs.
- You see this point of view at work in Paul’s words and his actions, his prayers and his plans.
What burden was it for Paul to be left alone? What does this say about his love for the Thessalonians?
- As Paul expressed in numerous letters, Timothy was the closest and at times only reliable fellow minister he had to work with. Undoubtedly, Timothy was a great aid and comfort to Paul in much of his own affliction. And yet, his concern and his love for the Thessalonians was so great that he would rather be alone than deprive them of the comfort and encouragement that Timothy could bring.
Does Paul call Timothy “God’s coworker” or “God’s servant”? What does it mean?
What does Paul consider the best way to reassure Christians in the face of affliction?
- It is the fellowship and encouragement of other saints that will most serve to establish and strengthen those whose faith is under fire.

3v3-5 – He wanted to remind them that our calling is to suffer, just as Paul had warned them previously. He was afraid that the tempter had somehow tempted them and rendered his labor in vain.

How could suffering cause someone to be tempted to fall away from the faith?
- If someone is expecting something different (e.g. health, wealth, and prosperity), then the appearance of suffering could cause them to lose all hope.
What would compromise of their faith look like for the Thessalonians? What does it look like for us today?
What would Timothy do to establish and exhort them?
- Timothy would remind them of the calling to which they have been called – that is, to follow in the footsteps of their Lord and suffer for the gospel’s sake. Paul told them when they were together that this would happen and it has come to pass just as they said. That alone should be encouragement to the Thessalonians. When something frightening comes your way, it’s always a comfort when someone is there who told you what you should expect but was also confident enough to reassure you that you will make it through.
- When we’re not facing persecution because we’ve been graced with peaceful circumstances, we ought to look for opportunities to support and encourage those who are facing such opposition.
What does it mean that we are destined for this? How does Paul’s preaching of affliction integrate with his gospel message?
- Acts 14:21-22 – “When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.”
- John 15:20 - “Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.”
- 2 Timothy 3:12 - “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,”
- Romans 8:16–17 - “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.”
- The message of the New Testament is quite clear in this regard – as followers of Jesus, we should expect persecution. Paul indicates as much by the tense he uses - he kept telling them that they would undergo persecution.
- In fact, you could go so far as to say that enduring under suffering and persecution is a sure sign of God’s favor:
  - 2 Thessalonians 1:4-5 - “Therefore we ourselves boast about you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions that you are enduring. This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—”
- There is a real union between Christ and his Church. He is the Head and we are his body. He is the king and we are the kingdom.
- The church is to experience affliction, just as its head experienced affliction. It’s helpful to understand this in terms of eschatology (the
- C.f. Daniel 7 and the King/Kingdom with suffering then glory
- Beale, 99: “These ordeals are not random trials but are part of a redemptive-historical design by which history will conclude with the Messiah’s establishment of a kingdom and resistance to it. According to Old Testament expectation, Israel would undergo tribulation in the latter days: persecutions from without and deceptive teachings from within. God would eventually defeat Israel’s persecutors, judge her compromisers and bequeath an eternal kingdom to Israel. Since Jesus summed up true Israel in himself, the trials he endured began to fulfill the prophecy that Israel would suffer eschatological trial. Those who follow Jesus in the present age are “in Messiah Jesus” and are identified with him as true Israel. This means they must also tread the same prophesied path of end-time tribulation before their own final resurrection.”
How could his labor be in vain?

3v6-7 – Timothy’s report has brought them comfort because the Thessalonians are standing firm and are eager to see Paul.

Timothy just returned, and Paul is writing this letter back to them. What does this say about his affection for them that he writes so quickly and is comforted in his own affliction by the good news from Timothy?
- The sincerity of his love is demonstrated in his eagerness for them to share in his joy – a joy which is based on word of their well-being. The excitement is palpable but at the same time convicting. Thinking of my own experiences, the question is – do I show the same excitement and eagerness to communicate and get reports from my brothers and sisters in the faith. For example, I think about how long it takes me to take the time and finally get around to writing a letter to a Compassion child.
- Paul does not merely approach his ministry as a profession, finding his satisfaction in doing a good job. His concern is the people and serving them.
What is the relationship between our participation in the spread of the gospel and our joy at seeing the fruit of God’s work in believers and our ability to endure affliction and suffering?
- Like the oft-quoted biblical passage says, it is better to give than too receive. Nowhere is this truer than when we’re giving of ourselves for the sake of others and their growth in the gospel. Pouring your heart and soul into a work and then seeing the fruit of it always brings a level of satisfaction. However, pouring your heart and soul into the lives of others through the gospel and seeing the fruit of the Spirit in them brings a joy that goes beyond satisfaction for a job well-done. If you feel like your Christian life is lacking in joy, ask yourself whether you are taking part in the joy-filled work of helping others to grow in faith.
- The joy Paul gets at seeing the fruit of his labor is comfort to him in his affliction. It gives him assurance that he is not suffering in vain, and that just as the Lord promised, while suffering for the sake of Christ he would be a light to the Gentiles and open their eyes turn from darkness to light and enter the kingdom of God. The Thessalonians’ endurance is a comfort because his friends are remaining strong in the faith, it is a confirmation of the word of Christ, and it is an encouragement to Paul himself to remain steadfast in his own affliction.

3v8 – “For now we live, if you are standing fast in the Lord.”

What does Paul mean, “For now we live, if you are standing fast”?

3v9-10 – He is overflowing w/ joy and earnestly praying to visit them.

Having seen their endurance and faith, what does he pray to God for them?
- He prays all the more earnestly to see them again and to be able to continue ministering to them.
- Notice how he says “night and day” – unlikely that he means every minute of the day he is engaged in active prayer for them, and it also doesn’t mean that he’s just vaguely praying all the time for them, but more intentionally, he is setting aside regular time on a regular basis to intercede for them

3v11-13

What are Paul’s priorities in prayer?
- He gives all thanks to God for the work he’s doing in the lives of the Thessalonians. Yet, he does it in a way that encourages them.
  - D.A. Carson, 87: “There is simply no way that these believers can thoughtfully listen to what Paul says and then smugly pat themselves on the back: God, and God alone, is to be praised for the signed of grace in their lives. Yet nonetheless they cannot help but feel encouraged to learn that the apostle himself has observed God’s work in their lives and rejoices because of it.”
- He prays that he might be able to strengthen them in their faith, overcoming all obstacles.
- He prays that they will overflow in love for other believers.
- He prays that they will be strengthened in heart so as to be blameless and holy at the coming of the Lord.

Three examples for us in this passage:

Paul – a passionate concern for the spiritual well-being of his brothers and sisters in Christ. So much so that his comfort, his joy, and his peace of mind is bound up in theirs. He is willing to be left without companionship so that they might have it.
Timothy – ever the faithful servant, willing to endure potentially hostile situations to bring encouragement and exhortation to the saints.
The Thessalonians – Young believers enduring extreme affliction, yet maintaining a strong faith and bond of love.

From this we can see the importance of expressing our affection for one another, as it seems to strengthen the brethren. Pastors and leaders should be passionately concerned for the welfare of those under their care. Likewise, we should endeavor to report to others how we are doing, even under difficult circumstances, as this serves to strengthen them in the face of their own affliction.

Political Visions and Illusions – Why we’re all liberals (but shouldn’t be)

Tue, 29 May 2012 02:12:00 +0000

In David Koyzis’ book Political Visions and Illusions: A Survey and Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies, he spends a chapter giving an insightful analysis of the ideology of Liberalism. He points out the oddity which exists in North America, where Liberal and Conservative are spoken of as polar opposites, when in fact the representatives at both extremes still fall comfortably under the label of “liberal.” He writes,

“What both self-proclaimed liberals and their opponents do not realize, however, is that in the larger historic sense they are all liberals of some stripe and actually share the same fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of man and of political community…Liberal ideal have been so influential on American political culture that even self-styled conservatives there are actually old-fashioned liberals…” (45-46)

All forms of liberalism (from progressive to conservative) share the same philosophical foundations, beginning with a fundamental belief in human autonomy. The basic principle is,

“Everyone possesses property in their own person and must therefore be free to govern themselves in accordance with their own choices, provided that these choices do not infringe on the equal right of others to do the same. If my proposed actions effectively violate the property another enjoys in her own person, then I have transgressed the primary liberal precept and must thereby be held accountable for what I have done…According to liberalism, humanity has certain rights that inhere in each person as an individual. The individual is autonomous: that is, she pursues a rational self-interest as she thinks best. This is not to say that the community and its claims lack importance for the liberal. The more thoughtful and nuanced liberal acknowledges that healthy communities are necessary for the well-being of individuals. Nevertheless, the communities claims are subsidiary to the rights of the individual.” (47-49)

According to liberalism, individuals as sovereigns precede the community and these communities come into existence by means of the social contract. Under this view, the state exists for the sole purpose of serving the needs of the individual. However, safeguards needed to be put in place to prevent the state from assuming to much authority and becoming oppressive.

In perhaps the most insightful portion of the discussion, Koyzis explains the development of widely divergent views of the role of government by means of an expansion that has taken place over the centuries in five stages:

The first stage, which he calls the Hobbesian Commonwealth, the state is actually the sovereign (such as an absolute monarch) and provides the subjects protections from the “vicissitudes of life in the state of nature.” Even though the rule may be oppressive, it is better the the alternative lawlessness and serves to meet the individuals right of self-preservation.
The second stage, the Night Watchman State, expands the idea of self-preservation to include the right to property, which is necessary for well-being. It is in this emphasis on property that we “encounter classical liberalism’s pronounced preference for the free market and a concomitant aversion to government intervention in economic transactions” (54). It is here that we see the rise of Capitalism, a la Adam Smith, et al, the American Revolution (“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”), and the Industrial Revolution. The right to equality, previously understood as an equal right to preserve ones own life is expanded to include the equal right to amass property for oneself. The result was a great economic expansion in Europe and the United States. However, the increased economic activity left people far from equal, and the successes of capitalism did not put an end to poverty but may have increased it or perhaps changed its distribution. This tension demonstrates the “paradoxical quality to freedom, given a society of fallen human beings. All people are in theory equally in possession of freedom, yet by virtue of this very freedom, people make themselves unequal, as we have noted. Freedom further makes it possible for some to take freedom away from others and to accumulate for themselves the capacities that accompany it. All this can occur quite legally and without violating the received mores of the community” (57).
The third stage, the Regulatory State, arose out of the tensions created by the second stage. Recognizing the limitations to freedom that could arise from private interests, these liberals saw the opportunity for government to be “brought into the service of freedom.” Rather than seeing government as the principal threat to freedom, a larger state could serve to actually protect freedom from infringement by non-state powers. This could be seen in Theodore Roosevelt’s progressive movement in the early 20th century.
The fourth stage, the Equal Opportunity State, developed out of the recognition that some individuals were not only limited by infringements of their freedom by other powers, but were also limited by a lack of economic resources, whatever the source. At this stage, the governments role includes ensuring not only equal treatment, but also taking positive action to ensure that all people have the opportunity to start at the same position. A difficulty arises here in trying to provide equal opportunity (while not fixing the game to provide equal result), which as Koyzis points out is caused by a central weakness of liberalism, namely that “it is not only unable to account for the ontological status of community; it also ignores the connectedness of individuals to previous and succeeding generations. It pretends that the individual is an isolated runner in the race, whose success or failure depends wholly on herself. When it becomes apparent that this is not the case – that is, when liberals bump up against reality – they are often driven to pursue policies quite at variance with classical liberalism’s initial antistatist orientation…It is perhaps one of history’s ironies that liberals came to be identified with such programs so thoroughly that in North America the “liberal” label is almost always used to describe someone favoring an expansion of the welfare state to ensure greater economic equality” (60).
The fifth stage, the Choice Enhancement State, is the most recent expansion of liberal freedom. Rooted in the idea that there is no common good or greater good, other than those which individuals hold to be good for themselves, the task of liberalism is to accommodate each individual’s desires as much as is reasonably possible, while in no case prejudging the choices they face. “Such accommodation requires to as great an extent as possible what might be called a metaphysically neutral state, or what might better be called a spiritually vacant state. Because the individual citizens are sovereign and because, further, individual preferences differ from one person to the next, the state must refrain from favoring one person’s preferences over another’s. It must simply establish the broad procedural framework within which individuals are enabled to pursue their chosen goals…This means that what is conventionally called “legislating morality” is not to be admitted in the liberal state…But at this point fifth-stage liberalism encounters a dilemma. While the liberal state is supposed to refrain from judging the goodness of people’s choices and while it claims benign neutrality toward the various options lying before its citizens, it cannot overlook the unequal consequences following from the exercise of these choices” (61-62).

The example of sexuality is case in point. Policies that would make divorce difficult, restrict abortion, or give official preference to reproductive sex over nonreproductive sex are viewed as “unfair and discriminatory insofar as they infringe on freedom of choice” (63). However, they have a tendency to ignore the negative consequences to the community that can result from these choices, such as shattered families, increased poverty, proliferation of unwanted pregnancies, and fatherlessness. “When these undesirable consequences do occur, rather than acknowledge that the quest to validate all lifestyle choices equally is a utopian one doomed to failure, fifth-stage liberals increasingly call on government to ameliorate, if not altogether eliminate, such consequences so they can continue to engage in this fruitless quest…Rather than calling on citizens to live up to their communal commitments and to fulfill their responsibilities throughout the range of communal contexts, this final stage of liberalism demands that government effectively subsidize irresponsible behavior for fear that doing otherwise risks making government into a potentially oppressive legislator of the good life” (64).

Often the most vocal and focused criticisms of the later stages of liberalism come from classical liberals, often under the name of conservative. Koyzis makes the valid point that the response is “fundamentally inadequate because it seeks merely to reverse a lengthy – and possibly inevitable, given liberalism’s presuppositions – historical process rather than to question in the first place liberalism’s reduction of the state to a mere voluntary organization charged only with the fulfilling the shifting terms of a social contract” (64).

Koyzis predicts that it will be liberalism’s “spiritually vacant state” that is most likely to spell its end as the primary political theory, though the presuppositions currently remain nearly unchallenged. He explains:

“Liberalism makes a pretense of benign neutrality within the political realm toward such ultimate convictions commonly labeled religious. Because traditional religions are deemed inherently divisive of the body politic, liberals would prefer – no, demand – that they be limited to the realm of private conviction. In contrast to the theocratic pretensions of earlier monarchies, the liberal policy no longer attempts to prescribe an official creed for its citizens. Yet as a price for granting religious freedom, the followers of traditional religious must limit their beliefs to the realms of family, home and church, and must concomitantly keep them out of the public square. Undergirding this approach lies the assumption that traditional religious beliefs are fundamentally subjective and irrational, and thus not subject to thoughtful public discourse….In the midst of a pluralistic society, it is argued, the state is obligated to exclude from the public square all beliefs that might have the effect of tearing apart the body politic…

Yet the spiritually vacant state is, after all, nothing of the sort. As Richard John Neuhaus observes, the “naked public square” cannot remain naked for long: ‘When the value-bearing institutions of religion and culture are excluded, the value-laden concerns of human life flow back into the square under the banner of politics. It is much like trying to sweep a puddle of water on an uneven basement floor; the water immediately flows back into the space you had cleared.’

Neuhaus is surely right as far as he goes. But his argument must be taken a step further: the naked public square is not only quickly filled, but is itself an illusion. The spiritually vacant state is never such in reality. If liberalism is rooted in an idolatrous religion, as I’m arguing here, then even when its followers presume to have banished the spirits from the public square, they have done no more than to infuse it with their own spirit. In other words, they have successfully privatized all religions except their own, which they have in fact privileged above all others.

But perhaps through an ingenious sleight of hand, they have persuaded the followers of these other religions that liberalism is not rooted in any religion and, quite against the testimony of their own traditions, that the privatization of their ultimate beliefs is right and proper and in the public interest. When people finally see through the ruse and decide to accept no longer the terms of this Faustian bargain, liberalism’s ascendancy is likely to end. Until then its assumptions appear incontestable and it continues to set the ground rules” (67-68).

In my view, Koyzis’ analysis is spot on, and he proceeds to end the chapter describing the fundamentally religious nature of liberal ideology, including its own distinct form of sin, salvation, and eschatology. There is a lot of good in liberalism and the world has benefited greatly from much of it, but as an ultimate ideology it fails because it does not cohere with the world in which we live. The individual is not sovereign (though neither is the state). The state cannot be reduced simply to a voluntary social contract, and the idea of “benign metaphysical neutrality” is a myth whose time will soon be up.

This chapter alone is worth the price of the book, and is only one of the several ideologies that Koyzis addresses. The others include Conservatism, Nationalism, Democracy, and Socialism, all of which are full of valuable insights. The final two chapters propose a way forward for Christians to transcend the various ideologies and approach the political world in a more holistic way, drawing on examples from various Christian traditions as providing guidance.

Colossians 2:8-15

Tue, 08 May 2012 01:29:00 +0000

A (somewhat forced but helpful) outline of the argument – Theology expressed and applied:

Theology:

(v8-10) Don’t be led astray by false teachers, who do not hold to Christ, the fullness of God
(v11-12a) You have been buried with Christ in his death
(v12b-13a) You have been raised with Christ in his resurrection
(v13b) You have been forgiven of your sins
(v14-15) You have been delivered from the law and the enemy

Application:

(v16-19) Therefore, don’t let this false teacher trouble you or seduce you
(v20-23) If you died with Christ, then you have died to all false religion
(v1-4) If you have been raised with Christ, then set your mind on him with hope
(v5-9) Since you have died with Christ, put away all that is sinful and worldly
(v10-11) Since you have been raised with Christ, you are part of the renewed creation
(v12-13) Since you have been forgiven, live in love and forgiveness
(v14-17) Since you have been delivered, serve Christ as Lord with joy and thanksgiving

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world and not according to Christ.

At its most basic level, the warning here is to watch out for false teachers. Unlike the cartoon bad guys, these teachers do not wear black cloaks and have a shifty look on their faces. They have the appearance of wisdom, of standing on the authority of respected people or traditions, and of teaching something that appears to accord with reality. It’s called deceitful because it appears to be one thing but is, in fact, something else.

This is a very common warning throughout the New Testament. In the era between the resurrection of Christ and his return, the Church faces a serious threat of false teachers and spiritual forces that seek to derail the mission of the Church in the world. For example:

Matthew 7:15 - Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Philippians 3:2 - Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.
Acts 20:29-30 - I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.
2 Pet. 2:1 - But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
1 John 4:1 - Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

For the early Church, by far the biggest threats and the most destructive false teachings were coming out of Judaism. Sometimes it was outright persecution and explicit opposition to the truth of Jesus as Messiah. Other times it was more subtle and deceptive, accepting Jesus as the Messiah but also teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised and observe the ceremonies of the law in order to be full members of the covenant and be saved. You see clear examples of this in Acts 15 and the book of Galatians. Much of the New Testament is composed of opposition to this teaching, which went against the very heart of Christianity – that in the death, resurrection, and exaltation Jesus the Messiah, the old order of things has passed away and the new creation has dawned; that he has fulfilled all that the law foreshadowed, and that forgiveness of sins and membership in the New Covenant is freely available to both Jew and Gentile by faith in the Lord Jesus. The denial of this reality took many forms, including ceremonial requirements, teaching that required subjection to mediating spirits, magic, and other forms of pagan spirituality, or other forms of religion which explicitly or implicitly denied the gospel.

In this situation, the false teachers could argue for their position based on an appeal to traditions, as well as an apparently shared belief in powerful spiritual forces that govern the world. The word philosophy here is not limited to what we normally mean by the word philosophy today. It is much broader and can incorporate any number of religious teachings. The deceitful philosophy that Paul warns of threatens to enslave the Colossians. In contrast to what they’ve learned in Christ, the false teachers are seeking to lead them according something else, which Paul calls “elemental spirits.” What exactly does this mean? The word used here is a bit ambiguous, since it can mean “basic elements of the material world,” “the letters of the alphabet,” “rudimentary religious teachings,” “heavenly bodies,” “or angelic beings.” He uses this same phrase 3 times in Galatians 4:1-11. Once, he’s referring to himself and other Jews under the Old Covenant law, while the other two times he is referring to the former pagan religion of the Galatians. For both situations, the elements are an enslaving force in contrast to the freedom gained in Christ.

The contrast with the gospel is clear: The word of truth vs. the deceitful philosophy; the rescuing and liberating Christ vs. the enslaving teacher of the philosophy.

Whatever the specific error the Colossians faced, Paul’s warning is broad enough to apply readily to our day. The deceitful philosophies abound still, and using the Jews under the Old Covenant and the pagans of Galatia as a starting point we see similar examples today of enslavement to a deceitful philosophy following human traditions:

Those enslaved to legalistic religion
Those enslaved to a materialistic naturalism
Those enslaved to their own lusts and pleasures

QUESTION – What are some examples today of enslaving philosophies? False religions that are prevalent?

QUESTION – What can we do to watch and ensure that we’re not taken captive by these deceptive philosophies?

QUESTION – How can we watch out for our brothers and sisters in Christ? What does this involve?

The standard for discerning truth and error is Christ. Is it in accord with the reality that is made know to us in Jesus? Any philosophy or system of thought that finds its basis in anything other than Christ is enslaving. Paul’s warning – Watch out! If it doesn’t line up with King Jesus, beware.

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

The basis for this confidence in Christ, over against all of these other sources, is the fact that in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily. This is similar to v.3 above, where Paul says that in him are “hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Jesus is both fully God (the whole fullness of deity) and fully man (bodily). And in his person we have all of the power and knowledge of God himself. Unlike any other angelic beings, who are intermediaries and lesser powers, in Christ we have the fullness of God. There is no need to be subject with fear to other forces in the world, because Christ is supreme over all and his authority unmatched. Likewise, as the true image of God and the perfect human, his teachings really do accord with how creation really works, in contrast to the corrupted traditions of fallen men.

and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

In Christ, the Church has been filled with all the fullness of God. We do not need to look anywhere else for wisdom, or truth, or satisfaction. We need not fear or be subject to any other forces in the universe because out head is the head of all rule and authority.

QUESTION – If all the fullness of God is in Christ, and Christ is in us, and Christ is all powerful, how should this affect us when facing opposition?

QUESTION - Do you have any fears when it comes to speaking the truth to others?

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism,

The old covenant rite of circumcision was the means that identified someone as a member of the covenant. It signified a setting apart from the world and sin (death), and a setting apart to God (new life). In this passage we see that Christ’s death on the cross is the reality to which circumcision pointed. This death, this circumcision of Christ, is counted to use when we are united to Christ in baptism. In him we have died and have been buried, truly cut off from the sinful world.

QUESTION: Why is circumcision no longer necessary for those in the covenant?

In contrast to the false teachers, who were likely teaching that the Colossians must be circumcised to be faithful, Paul teaches that their circumcision took place in Christ, and that by being baptized into his death the gentiles are full-fledged members of the covenant of salvation in Christ. The Colossians, though physically uncircumcised, have received the true circumcision of the heart through the death of Christ.

Both circumcision and baptism are external signs that point to an internal reality in the heart. Circumcision is not longer necessary because the reality has come in Christ. Baptism signifies our spiritual identification with Christ in both his death and resurrection.

QUESTION: What does it mean for your life here and now that you have died with Christ?

in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him,

Just as we were united to Christ’s death through faith, so we are united to him in his resurrection. The resurrection is counted to us by faith in the powerful working of God. For those who are baptized but do not have faith, they end up with the sign of death but not the subsequent resurrection.

Existing in a state of spiritual death and living apart from the covenant of God and righteousness, they have been given new life by partaking in Christ’s life. As he was raised, so are they. Their state of uncircumcision is removed by his circumcision and their state of death removed by his death and resurrection.

QUESTION: What does it mean for your life here and now that you have been raised with Christ?

having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

The reference here is to a signed certificate of debt. Not only has he cleared the debt, but he has even set aside, or taken away, the instrument that keeps tracks track of the debt. The past sins have been forgiven and the present remains clean. The image is one of taking the record and nailing it to the cross. That is, Christ in his death on the cross became our record of sin and that record was wiped out in his death. The debt of the mosaic law, which kept Jews under condemnation and kept Gentiles out of the covenant, has been removed.

QUESTION: If our past sins were were forgiven, what happens with sins that we commit in the future?

2 Corinthians 5:21 - For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Ephesians 2:11-16 - Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

The defeat and humiliation of the cross was actually Christ’s victory and exaltation and served as the defeat and humiliation of the enemies. The description of defeat and humiliation is graphic here and intended to leave you with no doubt that the spiritual accusers and oppressors of God’s people have been rendered powerless by the cross of Christ. All that is needed for judgment and salvation is accomplished in Christ.

Upon the Hill

Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 +0000

Life looks on

All around is death

Intent to see

To final breath

Friend enemy

Look in shame

The music stops

With arms stretched out wide to hug the darkness and envelop it in light

As if reaching to absorb and consume in itself all the world’s plight

Where hope meets despair and the beginning of all meets the end of night

Words are tears

Though unvoiced

With many jeers

Others rejoice

The pace slows

The story is told

Darkness knows

But will not fold

The end of ages

Is eternal peace

But evil rages

With such ease

The great why

No answer still

But every cry

Upon the hill

Will then reveal

This time to die

This is his will

Prophets testify

He lived to please

Made known in stages

Indeed, what he achieved

Was the plan of the ages

Light becomes dark and life cold

Sadness consumes and trembling grows

But Sunday comes and the earth it could not hold

Darkness swallowed up by light and from death life flows

And with the wine poured out the bread broken we come to a choice

The word goes out and proclaims the story across the nations and the years

In every place to make know his glory and the ones who jeered will then rejoice

Locked in darkness without a key until he won the victory that took our sin and dried our tears

Blessed in Him Alone

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0000

When all my riches I count as loss
When all my righteousness appears as loss
Happy am I

When all my tears an ocean cannot hold
When all my years have seen evil grow old
Happy am I

When all my might from using I forbear
When all my fight is gently to give care
Happy am I

When all my streams run dry and my fields are waste
When all my dreams are that to goodness I’d haste
Happy am I

When all my linens shine as bleached white
When all my sins appear out of sight
Happy am I

When all my kinsmen no longer file towards war
When all my interests are to reconcile more
Happy am I

When all my life is toil and pain
When all my loss in Christ is gain
Happy am I

For in Him alone a kingdom is mine
For in Him alone my tears will be dried
For in Him alone the earth is my treasure
For in Him alone righteousness is pleasure
For in Him alone I’ll stand forgiven and sing
For in Him alone my eyes will behold the king
For in Him alone I’m given a heavenly name
For in Him alone a life lost is a kingdom gained

This Morning Everything Has Changed

Sun, 08 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0000

Our life is swallowed up by death.
Light is overwhelmed by darkness.
Hope is faded with his last breath.
Only fear remains for us to hearken.

We thought he would set us free.
For ever since the dreaded curse,
There’s promised in him victory.
Yet darkness - nothing’s been reversed.

Where is the hope that was foretold,
Promised to us in days of old?
Where is the joy that might have been?
It’s been consumed by a world of sin.

Death has won, we’re all estranged,
God forsaken, it’s gloom and doom.
But this morning…everything has changed -
The stone’s rolled back. There’s an empty tomb.

Psalm 38

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0000

Your judgments are just, O LORD, but I plead mercy.
Your discipline is fair, for of you I’m not worthy.
My flesh fades away, in the face of your displeasure.
My flesh fades away, having made the world my treasure.

Like the crashing waves of a squall, overtaking the helm,
So the burdens of my sins do greatly overwhelm.
The rottenness of my heart manifests itself in plain sight.
My foolishness has brought me low, and to mourning day and night.

My tumult of heart and groaning of soul, feeble and crushed.
On the inside and out, all around my body is flushed.
O Lord, from my deep distress you have not hid your face,
Even when my body is failing and darkness seems to haste.

The rest have forsaken, friend and brother flee my place.
Enemies entrap me, speaking words of disgrace.
But you, O LORD, are faithful and answer when I call.
Keep quiet those who would rejoice, and mock when I fall.

Though I tower on the edge and my anguish engulfs me,
I repent of my sin, and confess my iniquity.
My enemies for good do wrong, and are mighty and hateful.
Be near, my God, for your timely salvation I am grateful.

E. Benjamin Skinner: A Crime So Monstrous

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 22:45:00 +0000

A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face With Modern-Day Slavery by E. Benjamin Skinner (2008). 5 out of 5 stars.

“For our purposes, let’s say that the center of the moral universe is in Room S-3800 of the UN Secretariat, Manhattan. From here, you are some five hours from being able to negotiate the sale, in broad daylight, of a healthy boy or girl. Your slave will come in any color you like, as Henry Ford said, as long as it’s black. Maximum age: 15. He or she can be used for anything. Sex or domestic labor are the most frequent uses, but it’s up to you” (1).

So begins A Crime So Monstrous.

First a definition: “A slave is someone who is forced to work, through fraud or threat of violence, for no pay beyond subsistence” (289).

Here’s the problem: Slavery is illegal in every country in the world, yet there are more humans in slavery today than at any time in history and most people are blissfully unaware of this reality. When there is publicity or pressure, it usually centers on the issue of sex-trafficking and forced prostitution, a problem which, while grotesque and dehumanizing, makes up only a fraction of the global human trafficking and slavery that occurs. Skinner’s goal with this book is to give face to the faceless people involved – those who are in slavery, those who traffic in human beings, those who give them cover and aid, those who try to stop them, and those whose demand drives the worldwide market.

Through this book, you will meet:

The restaviks, children in Haiti who are bought and sold for domestic labor or sex and/or who live with unspeakable violence.
Women and children in Southern Sudan, who are kidnapped and forced into various forms of slavery in the north.
Teenage girls in Romania who are tricked into bondage and then sold and shipped like cattle through a modern day Middle Passage to work as prostitutes in brothels around the world.
Families in India who live under illegal debt bondage, working in unsafe jobs for no pay and under threat of violence or death if they attempt to leave.
Young immigrants who are enslaved in the United States, often slipping under the radar of school and social support structures while suffering physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.

The research and reporting in the book is superb, and Skinner literally risks his life on numerous occasions to get inside an very dark and hidden world. He found himself negotiating the sale of other human beings with some of the lowest scum. He brings first-hand accounts of people who have escaped slavery and of those who are still in it. The book is disturbing on many levels, but those who would rather just not hear about it are complicit. Especially disturbing was the realization that much of the sex-trafficking demand in several countries is actually driven by the existence of international military and support personnel who are purportedly in a country to provide humanitarian help.

Interspersed with these accounts are discussions of the political and legal efforts to make a dent in global slavery, with a special focus on the work of John Miller, who served as the director of the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking In Persons from 2002-2006. Reading of the efforts of those such as John Miller, who are tirelessly working to free slaves and prevent new ones through the world, are encouraging. Reading of the ambivalence, obstructions, brick walls, misguided policies, and ulterior motives within governments both at home and abroad was devastating. At one point, he writes:

“George W. Bush did more to free modern-day slaves than any other president. But on the subject of human bondage, history does not grade on a curve.

Critics will conclude that his administrations abolitionist efforts can be summed up in three words: sparkle and fade. And media malaise reflected that waning government attention: there were less than half as many English-language news stories mentioning modern-day slavery in 2006 as there were in 2004.

Following John Miller’s resignation, his deputies carried on his struggle to demote India for countenancing more slaves than any other country. While they one the support of John Negroponte…, ultimately Condaleezza Rice turned her back on the Indian slaves once again in 2007.

Administration defenders will counter that, despite many missteps, Miller had led a bold attack on a disgracefully overlooked crime against humanity. He personified an optimistic approach that abolition, real abolition, was possible. It was an attitude that stood in marked contrast to the cynicism of many international organizations. But he oversaw a policy that was defective before his arrival, and after his departure.”

In the name of diplomacy and for the sake of other interests, the United States found itself inconsistent applying its political pressure against human trafficking, refusing to take meaningful steps with countries such as the Netherlands, India, and Saudi Arabia, where the failure in government action has resulted in continued and growing slavery within those nations.

Skinner also spent some time discussing organizations such as Free the Slaves (www.freetheslaves.net), who have been very successful at working with grassroots organizations to free slaves, bring perpetrators to justice, and begin to address many of the root causes that could lead someone to end up a slave.

This book and others like it are important to bring to light an issue that seems so easily ignored in our culture. Christians, especially, who know the bondage of sin and the liberation that comes in Christ, are the people who should be the most voiceful advocates for these voiceless millions. As Skinner reports, Evangelicals were on the front lines of the drive against sex trafficking and prostitution but, sadly, their zeal has not extended so forcefully to all forms of slavery in the world. I pray that changes.

Colossians 1:3-8

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:24:00 +0000

“We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, for we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints because of the hope reserved for you in heaven. You have already heard about this hope in the message of truth, the gospel that has come to you. It is bearing fruit and growing all over the world, just as it has among you since the day you heard it and recognized God’s grace in the truth. You learned this from Epaphras, our dearly loved fellow slave. He is a faithful servant of the Messiah on your behalf, and he has told us about your love in the Spirit.”

In our prayers for you, we always give thanks -

The first thing to note is that Paul and Timothy are praying for the Church in Colossae and doing so on a regular basis. It’s not entirely clear in the original language whether the ‘always’ belongs to the ‘giving thanks’ (ESV, NIV) or to the ‘praying’ (KJV, NLT), but either way the sense from the passage is that they are regularly praying for the Colossians.
This is a common component of Paul’s letters, and in almost all of them you find him remarking about his earnestness in prayer for the recipients.
One of the most important things that we can do as individuals and as a church is to pray. Of all of the ministries and opportunities for service, this one is vital. Where it is missing, then our ministry and our witness is surely suffering. Certainly, this is a responsibility that falls upon the pastors and elders of a church to be praying regularly for their congregations, but the reverse is true as well. We should be actively in prayer on behalf of the church and its leaders. You can see this in Colossians 4:3, where Paul tells them to pray for him, that he might have opportunity and ability to proclaim the gospel. I can’t help but think that one of the main contributors to the state of Christianity in America is a lack of earnest prayer.
What are some barriers that stand in the way of having a consistent and faithful prayer life? How can we begin to overcome those barriers?
The next thing to note is that Paul’s prayers are an expression of gratitude. He has seen the work that God as done and is doing in Colossae and is giving thanks for it. In 1 Thess 5:18, Paul tells them to “Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.”
What about you? Do you find it difficult to give thanks “in all circumstances?” Is it easy to overlook things that God is doing in and around us and not be thankful for them?

To God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

In the next phrase Paul identifies the one to whom we pray and give thanks to – that is, God the Father. Just as today, the word God in Paul’s day is not a proper name or a title, but is a more general term. It’s important to know that every major religion appropriates the word God in some way (with a capital G). That’s one of the reasons that “God” is often permissible in public discourse in situations where more explicitly Christian notions would be opposed. Paul makes it clear that the God to whom he prays and offers thanks is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Who should we direct our prayers to?

Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus

The source of Paul’s gratitude and his motivation to prayer is that he heard of their faith in the Lord Jesus and their love for all of the saints. You’ll often hear people speak about what their faith has done for them, or how their faith has helped them get through things. There’s even a song on Christian radio with the refrain “that’s what faith can do!” However, faith is only as strong as the object of the faith. Faith in an uncertain thing is no better than not having faith at all. The Colossians put their faith in the Lord Jesus, which is the only reliable object for our faith.
This faith in Christ is not simply a belief that Jesus is real, nor even a knowledge that He is the Lord God, but is more akin to a personal trust. John Calvin defined faith as “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence towards us, founded upon the truth of the freely-given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.” It is trusting on the basis of the promise of Christ that we have been reconciled to God through his death and will be saved by him from the wrath to come.
This faith is the mark of the people of God and is how you identify your brothers and sisters in Christ. When we hear of those who have faith in the Lord Jesus, we rejoice with joy as if a newborn baby has just been born into our family. Paul says ever since they heard about it, they have been giving thanks to God for it and the fruitfulness that has abounded from it.
How would Paul have heard about it?

And of the love which you have for all of the saints

Along with this faith in Christ is a love for all of the saints. Now, this is not a love merely in the sense of feelings of good-will, or a general positive attitude, but is a love which can be recognized by its actions. It doesn’t exclude positive feelings but consists of more than that.
What is the relationship between faith in Christ and love for all the saints?
Consider some parallel passages:
Galatians 5:5-6
1 Peter 1:20-23
1 John 4:16-17
What kind of love is this? What does it look like?

Because of the hope

What is the driving motivation behind our love for other believers?
Here Paul adds the 3rd aspect of the Christian life, which is always associated with faith and love, namely hope. With the connecting word ‘because,’ we see that the underlying reason for our love to the saints is our hope.
What is our hope?
Ultimately, we hope for the resurrection and the realization of our inheritance in the Kingdom of God, the judgment of evil and the reign of righteousness. The ground of our hope is the resurrection of Jesus, which marks the beginning of the age to come. And when Christ ascended to the right-hand of God the Father, he sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in the Church – and he is the source of our hope, a down-payment of our inheritance.
Hope is our eager expectation for the realization of God’s promises which we believe by faith.
Consider this parallel:
Romans 5:1-5
Why does this hope result in love for the saints?

Laid up for you in heaven

Paul says this hope is laid up for you in heaven – this inheritance is a treasure which already exists and we are waiting to receive it.
The battle has already been fought and the victory won. There is an inheritance waiting for those who are in Christ and it will be revealed at his appearing.
Consider this parallel
1 Peter 1:3-4
What is the significance of this hope being laid up in heaven?

Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel

The Colossians we already aware of this hope because it is part of the very gospel which has given them life. There may be an emphasis on the fact that they heard it “before” in contrast to the most recent teaching they’ve been hearing from the false teachers.
The good news is that in his death on the cross, the sinless Jesus graciously suffered the penalty due to sinful men and was condemned as guilty by a sinful world. In his resurrection, God vindicated him as righteous and exalted him to his right hand and gave him heaven and earth as an inheritance. Those who put their trust in Jesus are freely counted as having been judged in his judgment, vindicated as righteous in his resurrection, and made co-heirs of God with him. What is true of him is true of those who have been united to him by faith. At the return of Jesus to judge the world, what has been accomplished on the cross will be fully realized in the lives of the saints.
Does our message still carry this hope? Are there presentations of the gospel that lack this hope?

which has come to you, even as also in the whole world

The last thing Jesus did on earth was to commission his disciples to carry the gospel to the ends of the earth, making disciples of all nations and teaching them obedience to Christ. They would be going forth as emissaries of the King, in fact, the king himself would be with them as they went.
Matthew 28:18-20
Romans 15:15-21
Jesus commissioned Paul himself to this mission of bringing the gospel to the Gentiles (same Greek word as the nations in Matthew 28).
Paul testifies that the gospel has indeed gone forth, from Jerusalem to the ends of the Roman Empire. As you read the book of Acts, it’s amazing to see the variety of ways that God used to spread the gospel to different regions.
At Pentecost, the gospel was preached to Jews who had come to Jerusalem from places all over the world, representing many different languages and people groups. Undoubtedly, converts from this group brought the gospel with them as they returned to their home lands. Some believe that the church at Rome was founded by one of these early converts.
It was the martyrdom of Stephen that scattered the church into the surrounding regions, which led to churches being planted including the one in Antioch, which would later serve as home base for several missionary ventures.
There were also the planned missionary journeys of Paul, which resulting in churches being established and the gospel spreading throughout the empire.
We all know how we as individuals came to hear of Christ and believe, but have you given much thought to how the gospel reached your region, or the region of your ancestors?
This mission of Christ to the apostles is the chief activity of the church in the world. Until he returns, we are to be about the business of bringing the gospel to the nations and people groups who have not heard it, so that Christ may receive the worship of which he is worthy.
What are the ways that the church carries this mission forward today? What is your role?

it is bearing fruit and increasing even as also in you

The good news of salvation in Christ produces the fruit of a transformed life and contains within itself the seed of multiplication, as those who have been transformed are filled with the love of God and the desire to share the Christ with others.
This passage contains an echo of the original creation mandate given to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28. Adam and Eve were commissioned to bear fruit and increase, filling the earth with their progeny, and in the process subduing and ruling over creation. In the Great Commission, which could be called the new creation mandate, Jesus commands his disciples to multiply and fill the earth with their spiritual progeny (go and make disciples of all nations), subduing and establishing Christ’s rule (baptizing them and teach them to obey all that he commands). Paul reports that this is happening, not only in Colossae but throughout the world.
Similar allusions in Acts 6:7; 12:24; 19:20
You’ll also find imagery throughout the scriptures of the Word of God as a seed producing fruit. For example, in 1 Corinthians 3, Paul planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.

from the day you heard and understood the grace of God in truth

It is the message of God’s grace in the gospel that creates spiritual children. When the Spirit of God opens the hearts of unbelievers to hear and understand the word of truth, perceiving God’s graciousness towards them in Christ, they are reborn into this new creation.
The message of the grace of God is the truth, in contrast to whatever the false teachers would have the Colossians to believe. Those who would lead them astray through different forms of asceticism and legalism have error from the truth of God’s free grace in Christ.

even as you learned it from Epaphras our beloved fellow servant

The Colossians are indebted to Epaphras for bringing the good news of salvation in Christ. He is their spiritual father, and a fellow-worker with Paul. Epaphras is the founder of the church at Colossae, and possibly also the churches at Laodicea and Hierapolis. He clearly has developed a close personal bond with Paul, bringing him news of the churches and staying to care for Paul while he is in prison. He has endured great hardship and continues in faithful service.
Paul’s mentioning of Epaphras may serve as Paul’s statement of support for the gospel that Epaphras taught the Colossians over and against the false gospel tempting them now.

He is faithful on your behalf as a minister of Christ

The text here is either “your” or “our.” If the former, then Epaphras ministers on behalf of the Colossians, meaning that he works and serves for the benefit and well-being of the Colossians. If the latter, he is a minister of Christ on behalf of Paul, meaning that he is working in Paul’s stead as a delegate, preaching the gospel to the Colossians and others.
Paul has nothing but glowing words for Epaphras, both at the beginning and end of the letter. He has been a help in work, a personal support, and a faithful servant of the cause of Christ.
Has God placed any Epaphras’s in your life? How can you be an Epaphras to others?

And he has made known to us your love in the Spirit

Part of Epaphras’s ministry was to bring a report of the churches to Paul, so that he may continue in prayer and keep up to date with what is transpiring there.
The Holy Spirit indwelling believers serves as the One who unites them in love. Whatever differences they may have, in Christ they are united in one Spirit.

Colson and Fickett: The Good Life

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:18:00 +0000

The Good Life: Seeking purpose, meaning, and truth in your life by Charles Colson with Harold Fickett (2005). 4 out of 5 Stars.

“Meaningless! Meaningless! Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.” That’s how the Preacher begins the biblical book of Ecclesiastes, and that’s the best way to describe the pursuit of life that is grounded in anything (whether self, or money, or sex, or fame, or power, or legacy) other than joy in the Creator and the hope of fullness in him. Although I’m a rank amateur in the realm of philosophy, I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone who accepts the premises of atheism and materialism can reach any other conclusion but that of nihilism, utter despair, and absolute moral relativism. The fact is, however, that no one can consistently live that way, and those who try are hardly welcome by the society that embraces their philosophy. Colson’s book vividly illustrates the truth of Ecclesiastes 1-2 and seeks to provide an alternative that brings significance, hope, and genuine truth.

This book takes an approach very similar to the other two Colson books I’ve read, Loving God and Being the Body. The method could best be described as “don’t tell me, show me.” Combining stories from his own illustrious life experiences with those of others he has encountered along the way, Colson conveys builds his case through a series of windows into reality. The result is concrete, powerful, and readable. Through these accounts, you’ll see the brutality of human nature, the utter vanity of a life lived for self, the unspeakable beauty of sacrificial love, the transforming power of God’s grace, and the life and death importance of the truth. This is a well thought out book and because of the way it’s written never gets boring.

The Apologetic Value of Excelling in Your Field

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:37:00 +0000

In my last book review, I referred to this quote by C.S. Lewis on the importance of Christians mastering their field of work and the impact that this would have:

“What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects — with their Christianity latent. You can see this most easily if you look at it the other way round. Our Faith is not very likely to be shaken by any book on Hinduism. But if whenever we read an elementary book on Geology, Botany, Politics, or Astronomy, we found that its implications were Hindu, that would shake us. It is not the books written in direct defence of Materialism that make the modern man a materialist; it is the materialistic assumptions in all the other books. In the same way, it is not books on Christianity that will really trouble him. But he would be troubled if, whenever he wanted a cheap popular introduction to some science, the best work on the market was always by a Christian” (God in the Dock, 93).

I thought I would provide some examples of Christians who have done this very thing and because of their demonstrated expertise have earned the respect of colleagues in their field. It’s important to note that they do this in a way that is consistent with the Christian worldview they hold and is not simply a respect earned from compromising their beliefs to be in line with the current scholarly consensus. These are some notable examples, and there are many others who could be mentioned. May their tribe increase. Philosophy A generation ago, the consensus in the world of analytic philosophy was that theism had long ago been placed in the dustbin of philosophy. That attitude has changed and one of the big reasons is the contribution of Alvin Plantinga and his revived form of Common Sense Realism. His works on epistemology and the problem of evil have been hugely influential. In her book Saving Leonardo, Nancey Pearcey writes that thanks to Plantinga’s influence,

“Christians now fill graduate programs, occupy key teaching positions, and write important books in the field of analytic philosophy…As Quentin Smith observes, in other fields, Christians typically compartmentalize their religious convictions from their scholarly work out of fear of committing academic suicide. But ‘in philosophy, it became, almost overnight, academically respectable to argue for theism’”

Literature C.S. Lewis himself serves as a great example in this field. His Chronicles of Narnia fantasy books have garnered appeal and acclaim across generations. The same can be said of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. In the area of fantasy books, you might also add Nate Wilson, whose 100 Cupboards and Ashtown Burials series of books are garnering quite a following. Examples abound in novels, two of my favorites being Jane Austen (Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park, etc.) and Fyodor Dostoevsky (Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, etc).

Natural Sciences The current director of the National Institutes of Health is Francis Collins. He was the head of the Human Genome Project and director of the National Center for Human Genome Research for 15 years. He is a protestant evangelical Christian and has been a strong advocate of ethics in genetic research. His most well-known book was The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Another active and influential Christian in the natural sciences is Henry Schaeffer III, who is widely published and cited in the field of Chemistry. He is also an active proponent for Intelligent Design.

Computer Science Donald Knuth, whose 3-volume book The Art of Computer Programming is a classic in the field of computer programming, is a well-respected computer scientist and a devout Lutheran.

Business Hobby Lobby was founded in 1972 and has grown to 450 stores across the country and internationally, making them the #3 craft and fabric retailer. David Green founded the company and attempts to operate it on biblical principles. In the stores statement of purpose, he says, “We believe that it is by God’s grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, we trust Him for our future.”

There are many other fields and many other hard working Christians that could be named, but this will suffice. Churches ought to encourage their members to strive for excellence in their calling and to be salt and light in the world.

Paul Marshall: Heaven Is Not My Home

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 03:16:00 +0000

Heaven Is Not My Home: Living in the Now of God’s Creation by Paul Marshall with Lela Gilbert (1998). 4 out of 5 Stars.

This is a book about being human in this world, specifically what it means for a Christian to live in this world as a creature of God in light of what Christ has done and ultimately what he will do. The underlying premise behind this work is the theological notion that “grace restores nature.” In other words, the creation has fallen into ruin because of human sin, but God did not just wipe it all out and start over. Instead, he redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus. This event marks the beginning of a new humanity, a new creation, one in which the true nature of humanity is restored or finally revealed in its fullness. While the consummation of this new creation awaits the end of history and the return of Christ, the restoration has already begun in history. Those who have placed their trust in Jesus and have received the Holy Spirit are already beginning to be renewed according to the pattern of this new humanity. Even in the midst of this fallen world, Christians are called to live in light of the resurrection, to live as redeemed humans in a creation that is still very much love by its Creator. This is the message that Paul Marshall seeks to expound and apply.

He begins by confessing that the book is very one-sided. The Bible teaches that the world as created by God is both good and, as a result of sin, profoundly bad. However, Marshall’s intention is to focus on the good, not to the exclusion of recognizing the effects of the bad, but with an emphasis on the good that remains. In terms of the distinction between the “already” and the “not yet” of our redemption, Marshall is seeking to expound upon the “already.” However, his reason for doing this is very much related to the “not yet.” The destination of the redeemed is not to some disembodied existence in a heavenly realm, but is very much an earthly, physical existence in a new earth. At the resurrection, we will be humans living in right relation to God and his creation and we are called to begin living that way now.

Our Place in the World

Humans were created in God’s image and given responsibility to rule over the rest of creation as God’s representative. We are called to “image God in our ruling, forming, and caring for God’s creation.” This responsibility is not removed by sin, but the fall has made it much more difficult to carry out. As a result of sin, our relationship with each other and with creation itself has been corrupted. God’s judgment against Adam and Eve results in the ground itself being cursed. As Marshall says, “Sin is not the reason we have to work, but it is what makes our work miserable ‘painful toil.’” This corruption spread to all of Adam’s progeny and has affected all of life. So why talk about this if creation is so wrecked? Why not just get as many people into life boats as possible and wait for heaven? Marshall answers,

A truly Christian viewpoint is not “lifeboat theology,” but “ark theology” instead. Noah’s ark saved not only people, but it preserved God’s other creatures as well. The ark looked not flee but to return to the land and begin again. Once the flood subsided, everyone and everything aboard was intended to return again and restore the earth…The story of Noah demonstrates that God has not given up on the world. God said to Noah, after the fall, what he had said to Adam and Eve, before the fall: “multiple and replenish.”

Following the description of humanity’s descent into sin, the Bible tells the story of how sin “has been, is being, and will be overcome through Jesus Christ.” Through the Old Testament and into the New, God reveals that he is concerned not just with the people of Israel, but with the whole world, and this is who Jesus has come to save. In the book of Romans, after recounting the wonderful work of salvation brought about through the death and resurrection of Jesus, the apostle Paul describes the creation itself as groaning and eagerly awaiting the resurrection and being set free from the bondage to corruption. The redemption of Christ is truly cosmic in scope.

Our Response to the World

In the next section, Marshall outlines four fundamental aspects of our life in the world:

Learning – We are called to be always learning, using the light of God’s word to illumine our understanding of the world around us. We study the scriptures, but not just to know them for their own sake, but to use them to know God and his world rightly.
Work – Our work is part of who we are as humans, and this is not limited to paid employment but includes “repairing the faucet, helping the kids with their homework, taking our the garbage, or making the bed.” In contrast to the medieval elevation of the contemplative life, the Protestant reformation emphasized that the priesthood of all believers means not only that all humans have equal access to God in Christ, but also that all work is equally service to God. As Tyndale said, “to wash dishes and to preach is all one, as touching the deed, to please God.” We must also oppose society’s attempt to consider work antithetical to fulfillment or to elevate some professions above others. We must view work as the responsible activity of God’s image bearer and seek to cultivate that mindset in our workplaces, granting people the responsibility and the opportunity to serve their neighbor and God and not treat them as a commodity.
Rest – God has made his view on rest know in the fourth commandment. It is vital to healthy life in this world, and serves as a curb against the inherent tendency to make an idol out of work. It also forces us to place our trust in God and resist the desire to consume and produce without limits.
Play – This is simply being “at home in the world and at peace with God.” It is “what we do for no reason at all. Play is not done for any reason outside of itself.”

Our Tasks in the World

Some areas of life where our responsibilities are played out:

The natural world – The biblical approach to the environment is neither idolatrous nor destructive. God condemns those who senselessly destroy the earth, and we should exercise responsible stewardship.
Political responsibility – “Politics is not simply a fight about who gets what. It is not merely a realm of struggle and sin. It is also a ministry, protecting the lives of human beings, God’s image bearers. It is a means of bringing justice and dignity. The restoration of decent politics is a Christian ministry. It is a hard and necessary ministry and we need to take it up.”
Imagination and the Arts – God is the master artist and we are called to imitate him with our imaginations. We should see to do so in our art, our dress, our cooking, and anywhere else we can.
Creativity and Technology – Technology is not a savior, but is a reflection of the desires and priorities of a culture and can promote the flourishing of humanity or can have a dehumanizing effect. We should break the idols of technology but pursue technologies that encourage holistically improving human life.

Our Hope for the World

The last section ties up the ways in which Christians impact the future of the world, and the hope that awaits:

Worship and idolatry – All humans are religious and are worshipping something, whether it’s the gods of pagan religions, the idols of our hearts, or the true God. In many ways, Christians are also susceptible to idolatry – whenever we’re putting our trust or confidence in something other than Christ. The pattern of an idolatrous society involves serving gods with out lives, being transformed into the image of the god, and creating structures and forms of society in its own image and into the image of its idols. When Christ transforms a culture, the idols become de-idolized and the good which had been corrupted to idolatry is restored to proper use in serving Christ.
Evangelism – The great commission calls the nations to obey God. “When men and women turn to Jesus Christ in real, concrete repentance from sin and, by grace through faith, are restored in God’s favor, they are called to being to live out the healing and restoration of Christ’s redemption, taking up their Christian responsibility for the direction of human life and culture.” We need a much deeper view of evangelism and consider how all of our work, art, and actions in the world are a potential testimony to true reality even when they’re not explicitly “evangelistic.” This is a powerful witness to the world, when Christians produce good families, good businesses, good art, good books, and good politics. Quoting C.S. Lewis: “What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects –with their Christianity latent…Our Faith is not very likely to be shaken by any book on Hinduism. But if whenever we read an elementary book on Geology, Botany, Politics, or Astronomy, we found that its implications were Hindu, that would shake us. It is not the books written in direct defense of Materialism that make the modern man a materialist; it is the materialistic assumptions in all the other books. In the same way, it is not books on Christianity that will really trouble him. But he would be troubled if, whenever he wanted a cheap popular introduction to some science, the best work on the market was always by a Christian.”
Patience and Longsuffering – There remains evil and suffering in this world, and our God bears patiently with wickedness until the final judgment. We are called to perseverance in hope, knowing that the suffering is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory.
The New Creation – Our hope is for the resurrection, and we get a picture of how real it is in the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. He was no ghost. He walked, he cooked, and he ate – we shouldn’t expect to be any different. All that is good in this creation, and all that has been redeemed will be welcomed into the new creation. The fires of 2 Peter 3:7 are not fires of destruction that destroy all of creation, but purifying fires of judgment that destroy the sinful and the wrong. In the meantime, Christians are called to hope and joy in the midst of pain, seeking to patiently do God’s will while they await the blessed hope of the Lord’s return.

In 1 Corinthians 10:31, the apostle Paul exhorts believers that everything they do should be done for the glory of God. That is the message of this book and one that needs to be heard in our churches. So many Christians live a compartmentalized existence, where there is little relationship between what they do on Sunday and what they do on Monday. There are a few things to quibble about throughout the book, but overall the heart of it is right where it needs to be. All of Christ, for all of life, for all the world.

30-Second Book Reviews

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:25:00 +0000

As I plow through these books on the hit list, several of them have left me without too much to say about them, or in some cases so much to say that I just can’t bring myself to take the time to write about them. These aren’t necessarily bad, but I’m going to give my 30-second take on them rather than a full review. Jesus Christ: The Prince of preachers – Learning from the teaching ministry of Jesus by Mike Abendroth

This is an attempt to extrapolate principles from the teaching ministry of Jesus that can guide us in how we preach and listen to sermons. Each chapter contains a section explaining what Jesus did, a section applying it to preachers and teachers, and a section applying it to the listeners of sermon. Overall, the principles laid out were good and sound as far as they go, but the book read a little more like an outline than anything else. There were a lot of bullet points, with a short amount of discussion on each one. The sections on application to the listener were the most uniquely helpful, in my opinion. While there are many excellent books on preaching biblically, there is much less discussion of the responsibilities that the Bible lays on the hearers of the Word and this helps fill that gap.

What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe

The idea for this book takes a page out of It’s A Wonderful Life, asking what would the world be like if Christ had never been born. A book that actually pursued that line of reasoning would be quite intriguing itself. Based on the content of this book, I’d suggest a better title would be Is Christianity Good for the World?, since that is essentially what’s being argued. I think the book successfully identifies influences in several areas of life that we (generally) take for granted as good but often fail to realize that they were a product of a distinctly Christian view of the world. For that reason alone, it may be beneficial for Christians to read and reflect on. However, due to the limited space afforded, each of the discussions lacks a certain amount of depth and an interaction with dissenting views or alternate theories. The other thing that’s not always clear is the distinction between something that is a direct product of Christian belief, something that was accomplished by Christians, and something that arose out of a Judeo-Christian society but may not be directly attributable to Christianity. Perhaps a good survey, but you’ll need to look elsewhere for a more rigorous analysis and defense.

Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of “Progressive Creationism” (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross by Jonathan Sarfati

The goal of this book is to refute the old-earth creationist views put forward by Hugh Ross, et al., and to defend in their place young-earth creationism. The two avenues of attack are biblical interpretation and scientific data. I don’t have enough knowledge of the science to analyze the arguments he makes, though there have been several Christians who have challenged the validity of the scientific analysis in this book. Probably the strongest part of the book is the defense of the idea that the six days of Genesis 1 are intended to mean six days. However, Sarfati does not seem to acknowledge the presence of other old earth views which do accept a plain language interpretation of Genesis 1 but do not have a problem with a very old earth. An example of this would be the phenomenological view as explained by Edgar Andrews in the last chapter of Who Made God?, or the Historical Creationism of Sailhamer, or others with similar approaches. All things considered, saying that anything other than young-earth creationism is a capitulation to godless science and a compromise of faithful exegesis is ungracious at best. It ignores the large number of biblical scholars who are committed to inerrancy and letting the Bible declare its own position, yet who do not agree with the position advocated by Sarfati.

Reading this book and some of the scientific criticisms it received reminded me of this quote (and warning) by Augustine:

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although ‘they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.’”

Frank Senn: Protestant Spiritual Traditions

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:09:00 +0000

Protestant Spiritual Traditions** by Frank Senn (1986) – 3.5 out of 5 stars.

In this book, Frank Senn attempts to provide a survey of spirituality in the major traditions which make up Protestantism today. He defines “spirituality” as “communion with God and the way of life which emanates from that.” The approach he takes is to solicit an essay from a representative within each tradition (with Senn providing the Lutheran perspective). This allows each tradition the ability to express its own distinct voice on the subject of spirituality.The goal is not to outline the doctrinal distinctives of each tradition, or to provide a complete history of the origination and development of each tradition, but to provide a look specifically into the approach of each with regards to prayer, faith, public worship, and private devotion. The focus for each is on the founders or key influences in each tradition to provide a view of their spirituality in its original form. The motivation for this is to provide a perspective which may call some back to their origins. Senn writes:

“The essays are offered in the conviction that Protestants and non-Protestants alike will appreciate a survey of the spiritualities which have nurtured the faith and life of so many adherents who have contributed in a formative way to Western, and especially North American, culture. At the same time it may be that many Protestants who are searching for a deeper spiritual life will find what they are looking for at home as well as abroad. It may be that what passes for the copy in current circulation betrays the original. For this reason the essays emphasize the experiences and reflections of the “founders” of these spiritual traditions – e.g Martin Luther, John Calvin, Menno Simons, Thomas Cranmer and the Anglican divines and mystics, Richard Baxter, Philip Jacob Spener, John Wesley, and others. Communities in search of renewal need to begin by returning to their origins” (5-6).

The traditions represented are Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, Anglican, Puritan, Pietist, and Methodist. Most of the essays are about 40-50 pages long, except for the Reformed and Puritan essays which were much shorter at 25 and 18 pages, respectively. Not all of the essays were of equal quality nor equally clear.

In my opinion, the strongest was Senn’s, which provided a well-balanced view of Lutheran spirituality, touching on the mystical and ascetic aspects of Luther’s spirituality, Lutheran liturgy, the sacraments, catechism and hymnody, prayer, devotional literature, and the tradition’s emphasis on discipleship and cross-bearing.

The remainder of the essays were helpful to varying degrees and together provide an interesting view of the way these various traditions have arisen from and influenced one another. From these essays and also general observation, the Puritan and Pietist streams seem to have had the most far reaching influence, affecting aspects of life (whether cultural or religious) in each of the other traditions. Perhaps the most insightful observation of all the essays was the idea that Puritanism could accurately be described as an application of medieval monasticism to all of life. Glenn Hinson writes:

“Puritanism was spirituality. Puritans were to Protestantism what contemplative and ascetics were to the medieval church. They parted company with their medieval forbears chiefly in the locus of their efforts. Where monks sought sainthood in monasteries, Puritans sought it everywhere – in homes, schools, town halls, shops as well as churches. Sometimes knowingly, at other times unknowingly, they employed virtually the same methods monks used to obtain the same goal – “the saints’ rest,” heaven, or “full and glorious enjoyment of God.” Like the monks, they were zealous of heart religion manifested in transformation of life and manners. Impatient for unreserved, enthusiastic embracing of the covenant. Everything they did, they did with solemnity and determination” (165).

This book would be a helpful supplement to a study in historical theology or church history, and gives much needed insight into the similarities and differences in the way your neighbor at the Protestant church down the street worships Christ.

Len Deighton: Blood, Tears and Folly

Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:36:00 +0000

Blood, Tears and Folly: An Objective Look at World War II by Len Deighton (1993) – 3.5 out of 5 stars

This book was a readable and interesting look at several facets of World War II. Focusing on the period from the start of the war up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, Deighton attempts to present a objective look at what happened and analyze the factors contributing to the outcome. The material is arranged topically, beginning with the naval battle in the Atlantic, moving to the German conquering of Europe, the war in Italy and North Africa, the battle of air forces, the German assault on Russia, following by the Japanese war in the Pacific.

There is a lot of material covered in this book. It was tedious at times, particularly if you’re not a war history buff, but it was quite informative. He does not provide a dry recounting of events but traces back to the root of the conflicts and provides an analysis of why things happened the way the did, and what might have been different.

This account of WWII left me with these impressions:

Those who don’t learn the lessons of history are doomed to be manipulated by those who have. Reading Deighton’s account of World War II, it was apparent that there were many lessons from the the first World War that went unlearned by the British but were heeded by the Germans and this gave them a distinct advantage as a result.

The failures and setbacks (both of the Allies and the Axis) were most often attributable to failures in leadership, the lack of which was a key factor in there even being a war on the scale that there was. In recounting the route of the British and French forces in 1940, he writes:

“The Allied defeats in 1940 were not due to a failure of quality or of quantity. Their air forces were very big and had many well designed aircraft. The French air force had well over two thousand modern fighters, more than twice the number deployed by the Luftwaffe. The French army had excellent tanks and more of them than the Germans and British put together!

“Some said it was a victory won by the close coordination of air and ground forces, a triumph for radio communication and ruthless aggression. But the collapse of Britain and France was mostly the outcome of the West’s profound failure in political, industrial and military leadership. The men with the authority to write specifications had not done it well enough: and the designers were not skilled enough. Education at all levels of British society was not good enough. Those who had become used to easy profits from outmoded factories failed to meet the nation’s needs. There had been no political will to stop Hitler at a time when he would not have dared to go to war. The military leadership, from top to bottom, had been totally outclassed on the battlefield.” (211-212)

Though generally a well-established fact, the book gives a striking account how naïve the political leadership was leading up to the war, and documents the many mishaps throughout. Folly seems to be the focus throughout, as Deighton seeks to dispel myths and correct popular conclusions regarding why things happened the way they did. Deighton’s look should be considered objective in the sense the sense that he does not shy away from being critical of the decisions of leadership or strategy, or pointing out apparent incompetence. However, he still writes as an Englishman being critical of his own nation’s performance while accepting that the Allies were nonetheless well-intentioned.

In many of the accounts, particularly with regards to the war on the seas, the reader is left with the impression that it was the Germans who lost the war more than the Allies who won the war. The unpreparedness of the West was apparent throughout, and you can’t help but conclude that this was a war that either should not have happened or could have been a much smaller conflict. There was a real sense in which the fear of war and turning a blind eye let to a much larger and much bloodier conflict than any could have imagined.

It’s been a while since I’ve read an account of WWII, but it reminded me of the horror which was that war and the one preceding it. The number of lives lost in 7 years – 20+ million military deaths and 50+ million civilian deaths – is simply inconceivable. The brutality on the battlefield was great, but the brutality extended well beyond the battlefield. This was in a world that thought it was done with war following the Great War of 1914-1918. That should serve as a sober warning to those who would think that such atrocities and violence are not possible in our time, a mere 60 years later.

Walter Kaiser: The Messiah in the Old Testament

Mon, 02 Jan 2012 04:35:00 +0000

The Messiah in the Old Testament by Walter Kaiser, Jr. (1995) – 4 out of 5 stars

The question of the relationship between the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, and how the authors of the New Testament understood and used the Scriptures, has received a lot of attention over the years. There has been a heightened interest in the past few years with a large volumes of work being done in area Biblical Theology. This is an important question for Christians since we hold that Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel concerning a coming Messiah and the salvation of the world. When Jesus and the apostles claim that everything which had come to pass among them was in fulfillment of that which was promised in the Scriptures, and they cite those Scriptures as authoritative witnesses, then it’s imperative that we also seek to understand for ourselves in order to continue faithfully presenting the good news of Christ to the world as they did.

Walter Kaiser’s objective in this book is much narrower than comprehensively addressing the issue of how the Old and New Testaments relate. He seeks to address specifically the concept of the Messiah in the Old Testament. Contrary to the claims of some recent scholars who have argued that the OT does not actually make any explicit Messianic claims and that any such ideas must be read into the text, Kaiser is defending the traditional Christian understanding that the OT does contain Messianic promises and that the NT authors were not reading into the text. He sets out to demonstrate that the OT, when taken on its own terms and in its own historical context, looks forward to the coming Messiah.

He begins by surveying the methods that have been used to interpret passages which the NT treats as Messianic. He identifies seven approaches which he says have been found lacking:

Dual meaning – The texts had a literal, historical meaning, but also a later fuller meaning which could be Messianic.
Single meaning – There was only one (non-messianic) meaning and the Messianic meaning was dogmatically imposed on the text.
New Testament meaning – Wherever there was a challenging text, the NT was allowed to serve as the final arbiter of meaning.
Developmental meaning – Allowing for only a single meaning within the times and circumstances of the original prophets but to say more when filled out by Christian doctrine.
Goal meaning – Christ was the goal of prophecy in the sense of uniting all the disparate strands and filling them with meaning
Relecture meaning – The NT read earlier prophecies in a new way and filled them with new meaning.
Theological meaning – Christ was the fulfillment of Israel’s history, but only in a theological sense.

Kaiser argues that all of these have a fundamental flaw in that they only focus on either the initial historical word or the ultimate fulfillment, and ignore the working out of the promise in the history of Israel. He proposes approaching these texts as promises revealing a single, unfolding plan and not just as a collection of individual predictions. He states:

“The promises of God were interrelated and usually connected in a series. They were not disconnected and heterogeneous prognostications randomly announced in the OT or arbitrarily chosen for use by the NT. Instead, it is amazing how the depictions concerning the coming Messiah and his work comprised one continuous plan of God. Each aspect was linked into an ongoing stream of announcements beginning in the prepatriarchal period, supplemented by the patriarchal, Mosaic, premonarchial, monarchial, and prophetic periods, down to the postexilic times of Israel’s last leaders and prophets. The promise was a single one; yet it was cumulative in its net results. Indeed, its constituent parts were not a collection of assorted promises about a Messiah who was to come; instead, they formed one continuous pattern and purpose placed in the stream of history.” (29)

He limits the scope of the book’s treatment to those prophecies which he considers direct predictions of a future personal Messiah, foregoing discussion of indirect prophecies concerning a Messianic age. He also avoids delving into the issues of Messianic typology and foreshadowing in the people and institutions of Israel. I think I would take issue with some aspects of Kaiser’s hermeneutic approach, and I have some quibbles about specific interpretations on some of the texts covered in the book, but this is a great contribution to the discussion and a helpful treatment of a large number of Messianic texts. I’d recommend reading this from Kaiser in addition to representatives of several other evangelical approaches to interpreting the OT in relation to the NT, such as Sailhamer (Meaning of the Pentateuch; see also The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? by Michael Rydelnik), Beale (New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New), Clowney (The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament; see also Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures by Dennis Johnson), and Leithart (Deep Exegesis:The Mystery of Reading Scripture).

The book’s discussion of the texts begins in Genesis and then progresses through the OT, era by era, providing an insightful analyses of 65 major Messianic prophecies, showing the unfolding of God’s plan for the redemption of humanity. From the very beginning, the hope of Israel was in the promise of God to deliver them through a coming redeemer.

He would be the offspring of Eve who would crush the serpent;
God himself who would take up residence in the tents of Shem;
the offspring of Abraham who would bless all the nations;
the ruler from Judah whom all nations would obey;
the Star rising out of Jacob and conquering Israel’s enemies;
the Prophet like Moses to whose word the people would be held accountable;
Job’s Arbitrator, Witness, Redeemer, and Mediator;
the Anointed of the Lord who judges the ends of the earth;
the faithful High Priest with an eternal house;
the Son of David who reigns over an eternal kingdom;
the conquering and enthroned ruler in Zion;
the Stone that the builders rejected;
the faithful One betrayed by his closest friends;
the innocent One who dies unjustly and is raised again;
the bridegroom;
the triumphant King who distributes gifts to his people;
the great Teacher;
the new and better David;
the house of David;
the Branch of the LORD who was born of a virgin, whose name is Wonderful Counselor;
the Lord’s faithful servant with a global mission, who is rejected by men, suffers vicariously for their sins, and proclaims the good news to the nations; the one who name is “The LORD our Righteousness;”
the Priestly King over all nations;
the Good Shepherd; the One who unifies the nations;
the Son of Man who will be anointed ruler;
the Desire of Nations;
God’s signet ring;
the One who was pierced and on account of whom all the tribes of the earth will mourn;
the Messenger of the Covenant in whom the faithful delight;
the Sun of Righteousness.

Typing this up reminded me of these two videos:

Randall Balmer: Thy Kingdom Come

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:00:00 +0000

Thy Kingdom Come - An Evangelical’s Lament: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America by Randall Balmer (2006) - 2 out of 5 stars

If this were a different book, I think I might have liked it. There is a genuine concern in the unholy alliance of many professing evangelicals with the Republican Party, and a good case can be made that the Republican Party has not served as much of a standard bearer for the values that conservative, biblically-minded evangelicals hold (or should hold) dear. A thoughtful discussion of these issues would be welcome. Likewise, a substantive treatment of major public policy issues (in particular, those that often divide left and right) from a distinctly Christian perspective is beneficial and would help move the conversation forward. This book is neither of those things.

As the title says, this is Balmer’s lament at the hijacking of Christianity by the Religious Right to do their political bidding (which he sees as generally coinciding with that of the Republican Party). According to Balmer, the Religious Right, defined as “politically conservative evangelicals who, since the late 1970’s, have sought to exert their influence in political, cultural, and legal matters,” does not represent the views of biblical Christianity and even those of earlier generations of Christians. He regrets the fact that among most outsiders, the term evangelical carries with it connotations of “right-wing,” “Republican,” and this group known as “the Religious Right.” This is indeed true, and regrettable. In mainstream thought, the idea of a bible-believing Christian almost necessitates wholesale approval of George W. Bush and a daily recitation of the pledge of allegiance. This is not true to reality, as Balmer rightly argues, since there are many evangelicals who hold liberal political views and do not find themselves represented by the Religious Right.

While Balmer’s characterization in the book suggests that the stereotype is true to reality for those within the Religious Right (as defined above), I would contend that even here it is incorrect. “Politically conservative evangelical” no more equates to “Republican Party” than “evangelical” equates to “Religious Right.” In fact, as a politically conservative evangelical, I found myself agreeing with Balmer in lamenting the treatment of “evangelical” and “Republican” as synonymous. Balmer makes the book a broad assault on “politically conservative evangelicals” which he equates to the “Religious Right,” but the only punches he ever lands are on those closely aligned with the Republican Party establishment.

Semantics aside, this book is not Balmer’s version of “Why I am a liberal,” or an evangelical defense of liberal political thought. Neither is it a substantive critique of conservative political thought. Rather, it is an attempt to debunk the conservative evangelical viewpoint in six key areas, mainly through anecdotal accounts and ad hominem attacks. Where there is an argument presented on an issue, it rarely diverges from the standard Democratic Party line of reasoning, although there is usually an appeal to Christian belief as the basis. The six key areas are:

Abortion
Homosexuality
Separation of Church and State
Public Education
Intelligent Design/Creationism
The Environment

The book does a great job of pointing out much hypocrisy and even more inconsistent application of professed principles by leaders in the conservative movement. It also demonstrates ways that the Republican establishment has done a good job talking the talk on many issues which conservative evangelicals are genuinely concerned about, but have used those issues to gain votes and advance a different agenda. However, it does little to move the discussion forward with regards to evangelicals and their political positions. After reading the book, I got the impression that Balmer was not really lamenting that most of evangelicalism was aligned with a political party and had used the Bible and Christian values to promote a political agenda, but that it was aligned with the Republican party (as opposed to the Democratic party) and was promoting the wrong agenda. In other words, if the Evangelical Right became the Evangelical Left, there wouldn’t really be an issue.

Arthur Hunt: The Vanishing Word

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:58:00 +0000

The Vanishing Word: The Veneration of Visual Imagery in the Postmodern World by Arthur W. Hunt III (2003) – 4 out of 5 Stars

This is a difficult book to categorize because it is a many things – part history, part cultural critique, and part prophetic warning. Drawing on the thought of well-known names in media ecology such as Marshall McLuhan, Neil Postman, and Jack Goody, influential Christians like Francis Schaeffer, David Wells, and Gene Edward Veith, and numerous voices on each era of history, Hunt paints an intriguing and insightful (though at times questionable) picture of the ongoing tension throughout history between the image and the word (the Word, in particular). He argues that when the image dominates a culture, a thoughtless paganism rules as the norm (either explicitly as in ancient Rome, or implicitly as in Medieval Rome) and the people open themselves up to tyranny. Biblical Christianity is a victim of the preference of images over the word, and the impact on the society at large is profound.

Using Hunt’s one-sentence summary of each chapter, the book can be outlined like this:

Introduction – Although our communication technologies dazzle us, they also have the potential to unravel us, and to make us a bewitched people.
Tables of Stone – There exists a long-standing and irreconcilable tension between the word and the image.
When night fell – Pagan idolatry is biblicism’s chief competitor because one thrives in the absence of the written word and the other cannot exist without it.
The Fiery Word – America was born out of a print-oriented culture.
Something in the Air – As the industrial revolution transformed agricultural societies into urban ones, old social norms, habits, and customs, which traditionally held sway since the beginning of civilization, gave way to the rhythms of the concrete city.
The Machines of Show Business – While middle-class America hardly ventures into the seedy section of the big city anymore, the red-light district has now been conveniently piped directly into the living room.
The Image – The dominating components of today’s media content – sex, violence, and celebrity – conform to a pagan ideal.
On Begin Postmodern – Postmodernism is a turning from rationality, and at the same time an embracing of spectacle.
Formula for a Fuhrer – A dangerous soup is cooking.
Conclusion – If we know what lies behind a particular medium, are able to point out how it works and why it sways people the way it does, then we can lessen its power over us.

There is much to appreciate in this book. This is a relatively new area of study for me personally, though many of the underlying assumptions and ideas find expression and thoughtful discussion in two other books I’ve recently read, From the Garden to the City: The Redeeming and Corrupting Power of Technology by John Dyer and The Next Story: Life and Faith After the Digital Explosion by Tim Challies. Unique to this books is the thesis that the turn towards predominantly visual media is nothing short of a resurgence of ancient paganism.

The bulk of the book consists in painting a historical portrait of the conflict between the word and the image. The result is a fascinating (at times disturbing) tour through Western civilization from the perspective of an image-centered paganism and a word-centered Judaism/Christianity. Following this, he analyzes today’s culture in the same terms and the parallels are striking. For example, comparing the ancient polytheistic tendency to self-worship with our own, he writes:

A pagan, then, is someone who has engaged in a substitution process for the purpose of suppressing the true God. As a religious creature, one must have a worldview that somewhat rings true and provides a framework for being. Therefore, people create religious systems that allow for the pursuit of their own selfish desires. Ignoring God as revealed in nature’s design and inward conscience, they turn to experiential or bodily awareness, that which is found in the self. Meaning is then transferred to real or created objects in the world. Pagan happiness is found in honoring earthly objects through ritual.

When I said in Chapter One that visual media have the potential to paganize us, I simply meant that in a culture where it is difficult to escape the pervasiveness of images, the devotion that we put into the ritual of watching television, going to movies, attending rock concerts, or devouring the latest People magazine approaches the same level of devotion that the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans had for their deities. It meets the same need, and quite remarkably, the images are all too familiar. The cult of celebrity fills a religious hole dug by modernism. William Blake once said that all deities reside in the human breast (all but one, of course). So it was for the Greeks, and so it is for us. The machines of show business brought the gods back to life.

The ancient Greeks and Romans practiced their devotion to the gods within their particular cults. Cults were local in nature; the gods were woven into a pagan’s sense of place, work, or ancestry. Pagan piety has never been the same type of piety one expects or sees in Christian orthodoxy. The Oxford History of the Classical World tells us that pagan piety was not a matter of inward reflection or intense private communion with God. For example, no Greek would have ever written in a spiritual journal. The relationship between man and his gods was a casual one:

“It discouraged individualism, a preoccupation with inner states and the belief that intentions matter more than actions…Man was not for Greeks a sinful being in need of redemption; piety was not a matter of perpetual moral endeavor under the watchful eye of conscience. The gods excelled in strength and skill more often than in the quieter virtues. Indeed their behavior in myth was often scandalous: There might you see the gods in sundry shapes, committing heady riots, incest, rapes.”

The dominant tone of ritual was one of festivity rather than somber sanctimony. The gods delighted in seeing humans enjoying themselves. Therefore, singing, dancing, athletics, crude jokes, obscene gestures, and the occasional orgy accompanied the blood sacrifice. This spirit of festivity is captured in the New Testament when the apostle Paul describes the idolatry of the children of Israel during the wilderness wanderings: “Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play’” (1 Corinthians 10:7). The enormous amount of time, energy, and devotion that swirls around electronically-produced images constitutes a kind of ritual in itself. Images are pervasive, emotionally captivating, and…dare I say it? Sacred. They are not sacred because we associate the true and living God with them. Just the opposite. We associate ourselves with them. This is what it means to be pagan. Our images are sacred because we pour meaning into them and receive meaning back. We follow the sordid lives of celebrities both on and off the screen, bestow more honor on them than we do actual historical figures, develop “personal relationships” with them (even though we have never met them in person), buy their products as if they were relics, and make pilgrimages to their shrines (e.g., Elvis, Princess Di). To have the fortune to actually become a celebrity, says Neal Gabler in Life: The Movie, How Entertainment Conquered Reality, “is widely regarded as the most exalted state of human existence.” It is dying and going to heaven – that lucky someone’s inauguration to the modern version of Mount Olympus. To beat the insurmountable odds by becoming a “star” is to be cast into orbit with the other gods floating around in the celestial celebrity universe. Our association with electronic images helps us sustain a certain way of life and a certain way of looking at the world while we run away from God. We enjoy looking at ourselves. Our polytheism is not directed at stone idols or marble statues. Our polytheism resides in a house of mirrors.

Following a demonstration of the postmodern turn towards irrationality and spectacle, and how that plays itself out today, Hunt argues from parallels with Nazi Germany that this is nothing less than a recipe for tyranny and leaves us venerable to those who would exercise the will to power. With the safeguards of an active literacy and a biblical worldview removed, the eerie result could be best described as 1984 meets A Brave New World.

He concludes with a note of optimism, calling for action on an individual, family, church, and school level. His suggestions call for awareness and intentionality with regard to our use of technology, a resistance to the idols of our age, and an intentional effort to maintain the Word-centeredness of our worship and teaching. His final recommendation is to make media ecology a key component of our curriculum, forcing us to not only ask what technology can do for us, but what it does to us.

There are a few things about this book that I did not like. Most of the concerns relate to the fact that this is a popularization of a school of thought, and anytime that happens there is a necessary tendency towards reduction and little engagement with alternate views to argue the case. In addition, some of the historical portraits are painted with very broad brush strokes, and I’m curious whether the thesis would hold up under a more rigorous historical scrutiny.

In spite of these concerns, I recommend this book to all thinking Christians. It will force you to look at the world around you in different (and perhaps more biblical) terms, and will ask questions that you might not ever be forced to answer in our day. Also, if you’re new to the area of media ecology, I recommend taking up this book along with John Dyer’s book mentioned above.

Alistair Begg: Pathway to Freedom

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 03:17:00 +0000

Pathway to Freedom: How God’s Laws Guide Our Lives by Alistair Begg (2003) - 5 out of 5 Stars

I’ve benefited from the work of many Christian authors and preachers in my life, but Alistair Begg has a special place in my heart. It was through listening to his sermons, podcasted through Truth For Life, that I discovered a whole new world of expository preaching. For the first time that I can remember, I was listening to the Bible taught and applied on its own terms rather than marshaled to make someone else’s point. I had developed somewhat of a mistrust for most contemporary preachers, but Alistair Begg taught me that there were still some men preaching in churches who considered it their duty to remain faithful to proclaim what the Bible says. For that I am grateful.

This book, Pathway to Freedom, is an exposition of the Ten Commandments and an attempt to show their importance to the Christian life. Since it is based on a series of sermons he preached, it might be surprising that I didn’t rush to read through this book when I first received it. Ultimately, I guess I had concluded that I already knew what he was going to say, so there wasn’t much more to be gained from reading it. I’m glad to say that I was mistaken. Having read through it now, I can say this is an excellent book and one that I’d recommend heartily.

Decrying the lack of a sense of Christian duty among modern evangelicals, Begg traces our “moral flabbiness” to a neglect of God’s law. This neglect represents a clear departure from the pattern found throughout historical Christianity. The purpose of this book is to demonstrate that, far from being irrelevant or legalistic, the moral law of God as expressed in the Ten Commandments is foundational to living out our freedom in Christ.

When dealing with the topic of the law in the Bible, we must avoid the dangers of both legalism and license. We must also recognize the proper place of the law in the Christian life, and understand how we should and should not use the law. Building on Romans 6:14, he explains the ways that a Christian is not under the law, and then goes on to expound the classic Reformed view of the threefold use of the law.

The next 10 chapters work one by one through the 10 commandments, explaining and applying them to contemporary issues in manner that is both interesting and convicting. In each chapter I found myself challenged and convicted, and the mirror of God’s law was turned towards me. Underlying his exposition are these 3 principles of interpretation:

The commandments are spiritual and require that we obey from the heart. A mere outward conformity to the commandments does not constitute obedience.
There is a positive and negative aspect to each commandment. Where a sin is forbidden, a duty is commanded. In other words, the “thou shalt not” implies a contrary “thou shalt.” For example, the command against bearing false witness implies a command to uphold the truth.
Each commandment forbids not only the act but also the desires and inclinations which lead to the act. Not only is adultery forbidden, but also the lust that precedes it (Matt. 5:27-30)

Following the exposition, Begg concludes with a chapter on the good news for all lawbreakers – that in the death of Jesus Christ the penalty for disobedience has been paid for whoever will put their trust in him, that his righteous obedience is counted as our righteous obedience, and that his resurrection to life is counted as our resurrection to life, and that through the Holy Spirit which he gives we have been filled with the same power that raised Jesus from the dead and are free to begin walking in ever increasing obedience to him.

A Response to a Friend

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:17:00 +0000

This post is in response to my friend Andy’s questions over on his blog. You can read the original post with questions here. In response, I have a few preliminary things. First of all, I’m not a follower of Platt or Driscoll so I can’t speak for them or their views. However, I do consider myself theologically Reformed (or Calvinist – in the historic 5 Solas sense), probably more so than Driscoll (not sure about Platt).

With regards to your final note, if you had simply characterized Platt’s presentation as “pastorally irresponsible” then you probably wouldn’t have received anywhere near the responses you did, and I know I wouldn’t have objected to it. Whether it’s pastorally responsible is a discussion worth having, but let’s face it, you argued for bad exegesis and bad theology, so your objection is not merely pastoral responsibility.

Second, I’m not sure why you addressed this post to Calvinists as if this were a Calvinist vs. arminian issue. In fact, I know many evangelical arminians who would have taken no exception with the things David Platt said in the video (leaving aside for now the issue of pastoral responsibility). I’d love to engage you on your views of Calvinism and actually address the substance of what we believe. The only thing you said in your response to the video that would seem to be directed to Calvinists was the insinuation that Calvinists either don’t believe that God is loving or have a deficient view of the love of God, which is risible. The reformers have proclaimed the true love and beneficence of the Father as revealed in Christ more than any other group in history of theology. The rest of the criticisms would have landed much wider than Calvinists.

You dismissed the doctrine of Total Depravity, and in doing so you left behind not only Calvinists but most historic Protestants. With that move you have gone beyond well-beyond arminianism into some form of semi-pelagianism. Unfortunately, you’ve seem to have done so with a caricature of the doctrine. This is another area where discussion may be fruitful.

Thirdly, the line of questioning below hangs on the supposition that God’s hatred and his wrath against sin are not synonymous (or at least very closely related). This is an assertion which you have made but not demonstrated, but as you’ll see from my answers below, I do not grant the premises.

Finally, before answering the questions, I’d like to share with you a dialogue between Charles Simeon (18th Century Calvinist) and John Wesley (the original ‘Wesleyan’ Arminian):

SIMEON: Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

WESLEY: Yes, I do indeed.

SIMEON: And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

WESLEY: Yes, solely through Christ.

SIMEON: But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

WESLEY: No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

SIMEON: Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

WESLEY: No.

SIMEON: What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

WESLEY: Yes, altogether.

SIMEON: And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

WESLEY: Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

SIMEON: Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.

Question 1

I believe it’s important to let the Bible define the words it uses. In the Psalm, David expresses that God: - Does not approve of evil - Does not have evil people dwell with him - Does not have boastful people stand in his presence - Hates all who behave wickedly - Destroys liars - Despises violent and deceitful people However you want to define the words ‘hate’ and ‘despise’ here, it must be compatible with the notions that he disapproves of this class of people, removes them from his presence, and destroys them. Certainly the words convey the sense of active opposition and an unfavorable disposition. If you think the translation of ‘hate’ and ‘despise (or abhor)’ carries the wrong connotation in our context, then propose an alternate. However, even if you replace the word ‘hates’ with ‘rejects’ and the word ‘despises’ with ‘looks away in saddened disgust,’ I’m guessing that you will do nothing to remove the stumbling block and offense to our modern sensibilities. There’s no need to import 21st century notions of seething resentment, disproportionate anger, and sinful malice into the word to make it offensive – the concept expressed in the passage is offensive, no matter how you translate it.

There are two types of people in Psalm 5, the wicked and the righteous. These are not defined as those who are morally deficient and those who are morally upstanding. Rather, the wicked are described as those who oppose God and are actively opposed by him. The righteous are those who call upon the Lord, who rely on his steadfast love for entrance into his presence, and most importantly those who take refuge in him. That phrase “take refuge in him” is almost certainly intended to allude back to the Lord’s Anointed in Psalm 2:12, where we are warned to “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.” I would suggest that the concepts expressed here are very “New Testament” and that Psalm 5 is hardly an isolated occurrence. The risk in 2:12 is that King will become angry, and you will perish in the way because of his wrath. This motif is not swept under the rug in the New Covenant – the Messiah who sits enthroned at the Father’s right hand (Ps 110:1) and who intercedes as an eternal high priest (Ps 110:4) is also the one who will shatter kings on the day of his wrath (Ps 110:5) and will execute judgment among the nations filling them with corpses (Ps 110:6).

So what about David? Did he speak lies and act treacherously? Was he a man of bloodshed? Most definitely. So how is that he could enter the Lord’s house, boast in his name, be blessed and covered with the Lord’s favor rather than disapproved, cast out of his presence, and destroyed? How else, other than approaching him with an acceptable sacrifice and taking refuge in him? David’s case helps us to better define the classes here. The righteous are positively defined as those who fear the Lord and take refuge in him. The wicked then are those who are not righteous, and who are enemies of the righteous. It is against these enemies of the righteous that (post-Calvary, mind you) “God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you…when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints” (1 Th 1:7-10).

So does God hate (in the sense above) the wicked? The answer would be yes, both in this passage and elsewhere in the Scripture. And it would also be true that the way this hatred is defined is very closely associated with his judgment and his wrath. If we can agree that the psalmist’s use of hatred is dependent upon the notion of God’s wrath and righteous judgment, then this discussion will be much easier.

Question 2

In this case, you’re equivocating on the word ‘sinner.’ The way it’s being used by Platt (and presumably Driscoll, though I haven’t heard him) is the way psalmist uses it – i.e. ‘sinner’ = ‘the wicked as opposed to the righteous’ (as defined above). You are using it in the sense of ‘sinner’ = ‘those who have sin.’ So my answer, and I only speak for myself, is no – God does not hate those who put their faith in Christ. Again, this underscores the key relationship between the concepts of wrath and hatred with God. In Christ, God’s wrath is removed and therefore it cannot be said that he hates someone in Christ.

By the way, your exegesis of 1 Tim 1:15 is suspect. In the context of 1:12-15, Paul is not saying that he is presently the worst of all sinners in the sense that he sins as bad as anyone else, but that his former role as blasphemer, persecutor, and opponent of the church makes him the worst of all sinners and therefore the biggest display of God’s perfect patience and mercy towards sinners.

So, did God hate (as defined above) Paul when he was a persecutor of the church? Yes. Did God love Paul and send Christ into the world to save Paul? Yes.

Question 3

First, we must remember that when we are speaking of God, we’re speaking analogically because that’s the way that he has revealed himself to us.

When speaking of God, hate is not the opposite of love. Neither is it on the same plane or in the same category. God’s love is essential to who he is. Our God is loving Father, beloved Son, and loving Spirit. His love is perfect beauty, perfect goodness, and perfect holiness. If God had never created, he would still be loving, gracious, and holy. The Father and the Son have always existed in loving communion by the Spirit.

God’s hatred is the manifestation of his pure love in the face of evil (which is another reason it is close synonym to wrath). True love must hate evil. That’s why the mark of genuine Christian love includes an abhorrence or evil (Rom. 12:9; Heb 1:9). So, remembering that we’re speaking analogically, it is absolutely possible for God to both love and hate an individual. While we were yet sinners…while we were enemies…Christ died for the ungodly. Those who were objects of his wrath, those who were his enemies – it is those on whom he set his love and for whom he sent his Son to die. Furthermore, in this sense, his beloved Son did at the same time experience both love and hatred as he bore our sins in himself on the tree.

Question 4

This is pure sophistry. But I may post some additional thoughts on Romans 9 at another point.

Question 5

This is a ridiculous either/or. God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world because the world is already condemned. The wrath of God is already kindled. He sent his Son into the world to save them from the coming wrath. I disagree with the person that said God can love us because Christ died for us - absolutely not! Christ died for us because He loves us. But neither is it true that the wrath of God is no longer a reality after the cross. Why else is it significant that we who are justified will be ‘saved from the wrath to come.’ Whatever way you want to interpret the symbolism of Revelation 14:9-10 or texts like Matthew 13:41-50 and 2 Th 1:8-9, this much is clear - there is a “wrath to come” and the Lord is very much an active agent in it.

The flood of God’s wrath is coming on the earth, and it already came upon Jesus, and he came out the other side into the new creation. Those who are united to Christ by faith have already passed through wrath and entered the new creation with him as well. However, for those not on the ark the flood waters are still a real and present threat.

The apostolic preaching contains both elements - Good News, the Messiah has come, atoned for sin and conquered death, and taken his seat at the right hand of God! The Holy Spirit has come and the new age dawned! The exile is over! Yet they also warn that the Messiah has been appointed judge of the living and the dead - and God commands all people everywhere to repent because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness.

Question 6

As I argue above, I don’t think you can make such a distinction between wrath against sin and hatred when speaking of God.

Question 7

As I said above, our God is love.

Matthew 2:15 - Out of Egypt I called my son

Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:35:00 +0000

“Out of Egypt … called my son.”

The statement could be take in two ways: Out of Egypt because he would eventually return from Egypt into Judea - which would reenact the Exodus; or, Herod’s Judea had become the new Egypt, and Christ’s flight into Egypt is an ironic reversal of the Exodus.

What are the approaches to Matthew’s Citation of Hosea 11:1?

Jesus’ life is a recapitulation of the nation of Israel, and therefore his leaving Egypt fulfills this passage typologically.
The sensus plenior view, which would have God intending a direct fulfillment here, although Hosea was not thinking of the Christ. c.f. William LaSor Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978) 49-60.
Hosea is speaking of the divine love for Israel, that despite his judgment he will restore them. Hosea is speaking of the restoration of Israel which is part of the fabric of Messianic thought throughout the OT into the New, and the “Son” term is part of that as well. Hosea may not have had the Messiah directly in mind, but Matthew’s interpretation is consistent with the development of a Messianic understanding of Israel’s restoration. c.f. Carson, Expositor’s Bible Commentary
The book of Hosea is a compilation of the prophecies of Hosea to serve as a metaphorical application to Judah. In this view, Hosea 11:1-4 speaks metaphorically of the eschatological deliverance, and therefore Matthew is citing the literal sense. Sailhamer would say Hosea himself intended the messianic meaning of the Exodus as interpreted by the Pentateuch. Specifically, it is Numbers 24:8 which looks forward to the future king coming out of Egypt after Numbers 23:22 speaks of the past Exodus of the people. c.f. Brevard Childs, and subsequently John Sailhamer.
Analogical correspondence: Matthew looked back and drew analogies or correspondences with events depicted in Hosea 11:1 rather than Hosea 11:1 looking forward to the events depicted in Matthew 2:13-15.

Revelation 6 - Musing on the Seals

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:35:00 +0000

Given the close parallels, I’ve been wondering what the exegetical basis is for the common view of Rev 6 as the ultimate tribulation fulfillment of the general church age conditions described in Matt 24:4-14, rather than speaking of the same set of circumstances. In other words, if Matt 24:4-14 is speaking of realities throughout the church age, what prevents Rev 6 of describing the same? Is there exegetical warrant outside of the Matt 24 parallel for viewing Rev 6 as necessarily descriptive of the great tribulation?

When it comes specifically to Revelation 6, I don’t really see the literal/spiritual dichotomy when comparing the futurist, preterist, or historicist approaches to that passage. It seems to me that all approaches are offering an interpretation that seeks to identify the referent of the symbols (with the exception of the idealist, which seems to be much closer to a “spiritualizing”). So in this case, it’s more an issue of different answers to the question “What do these symbols mean?” rather than one taking a literal and the other a spiritual approach. Even the most closely literal reading I’ve seen doesn’t expect to see four literal colored horses appearing and their riders delivering the plagues, but sees them as symbols pointing to something else.

One of the most interesting things I’ve been studying these days is how the biblical authors draw on earlier Scripture to either give meaning to the current text or to interpret/expand on the earlier text. In Revelation 6, the striking parallels would be:

1. The four chariots in Zechariah 6 with colored horses (following the exile)

2. The curses on Israel for covenant disobedience in Leviticus 26:14-39

3. The judgment on Jerusalem in Ezekiel 14:12-23 (including a direct quote of 14:21)

4. The parallels with Matt 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 (given that these appear in the context of judgment on Jerusalem like the above, it seems significant)

I’ll admit that I don’t know what is exactly to make of Matt 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, Rev, etc. I have read much from all of the various viewpoints, and I can see some merits in many of their arguments, but I also see all of them having to shoehorn several passages to properly fit into their paradigm.

Some common objections against a direct parallel between Matt 24 and Rev 6 don’t seem to hold even under a literal hermeneutic:

First, from an exegetical standpoint, “τῆς γῆς” cannot always be made to carry the full weight of “the earth” in the sense of the “entire planet.” It often simply refers to the land, generally, or sometimes more specifically the land, as in the land of Judea/Palestine. Given that, where context allows, I don’t think that the literal hermeneutic requires “the land” to indicate something global in nature.

Seal #1 – Since the one going forth to conquer is the rider on the horse, I don’t think a literal reading requires that it refer to a single individual in the future unless each of the riders refers to a single individual who brings the mentioned plague, including two named death and hell.

Seal #2 – It doesn’t say “all peace” is take from the earth, but peace. When there are wars (or civil wars) in a land with men slaying each other, it is accurate to say that peace is taken from that land. Jesus himself claims to do that in Matt 10:34 (I’m not saying that this is what is referred to here).

Seal #3 – If this seal means anything more than a severe famine, impacting especially the poor (assuming “don’t touch the oil and wine” are luxuries for the rich), then you have to read something into it, since it doesn’t say anything regarding the geographical extent, duration, or cause of it.

Seal #4 - The riders of the pale horse are given authority over a fourth of the land to kill, but a literal interpretation does not require that this equate to a killing of ¼ of all of the inhabitants (consider “land” vs “those who dwell on the land”). It requires that ¼ of the land be under the authority of the killer, not that a ¼ of the population is killed. However, even if the death of a ¼ of the population is in view, it does not require a death of ¼ of the population of the entire planet (see above). Either way, the significant point is the means by which they kill, which looks like a direct reference to Ezekiel 14:21, and indirectly to the covenant curses of Lev 26:22, and Deut 32:24.

Here’s where I’m leaning:

1. Daniel 9:24-27 is a prophecy concerning the Messiah and the true return from exile, culminating in the end of sacrifice and destruction of the temple in AD70. Peter Gentry’s presentation is persuasive for me (using a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic). I don’t know where he stands in his eschatology, but he certainly isn’t disregarding the context of the book of Daniel or future references in the NT.

2. There is a very good case to be made for an early (pre-AD70) date for the book of Revelation, using both external and internal evidence, so I am unable to a priori assert that Revelation could not be speaking of those things because of its late date.

3. I’m inclined to think that John’s vision may very well serve as his “Olivet Discourse,” the discussion of which is not present in the fourth gospel.

4. One of the biggest problems for me (especially since I do generally use a literal hermeneutic) with seeing the future referent as primary in Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Rev are the time indicators which speak to the then present generation:

- Matt 23:36 – “all these things will come upon this generation”

- Matt 24:34/Luke 21:32/Mark 13:30 – “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”

- Rev 1:1 – “the things that must soon take place”

- Rev 1:3 – “the time is near”

- Rev 2:5 – Jesus to the church at Ephesus: “repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place”

- Rev 2:16 – To Pergamum: “Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth”

- Rev 3:3 – To Sardis: “Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.”

- Rev 3:11 – To Philadelphia: “I am coming soon”

- Rev 22:6 – “what must soon take place”

- Rev 22:7 – “I am coming soon”

- Rev 22:10 – “The time is near”

- Rev 22:12 – “I am coming soon”

- Rev 22:20 – “Surely I am coming soon”

5. A literal hermeneutic does not necessitate that phrase “the Son of Man coming on the clouds” be (solely) a reference to the Second Coming of Christ. After all, the phrase is a direct allusion to Daniel 7:13. In that passage the Son of Man comes with the clouds to the Ancient of Days. In that case, wouldn’t it be better understood as the ascension of the Son to his throne (a la Psalm 110:1; Acts 7:54-56)? Wouldn’t that also make sense of Jesus statement before Caiaphas in Matt 26:63 that “from now on you will see…”?

6. I think the reason that the preterists can make some very strong historical arguments, including striking parallels (down to some of the very language used) in Josephus, Tacitus, etc, is that the events recounted are the primary referent in those passages. Through all four gospel writers, Jesus was predicting in eerie detail the events preceding and culminating in the Jewish wars and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Even the 42-month time references you mentioned in Revelation can be found at that time (such as the 42-month persecution of Christians under Nero and the 42-month siege of Jerusalem. No doubt the intention with the time reference is to say (as Jesus said) “this is what Daniel was talking about.” There is great theological significance in these events and we often underplay them by pushing too much of it ahead into the future.

7. All of that above would tend to line up with a partial preterist framework, but where I see most partial preterists err is in trying to take that framework and fit too much into it. They see a lot of evidence in the text for their view but when they run up against something that challenges it, then there is quite a bend to get it to fit. There is no doubt that both Revelation and Jesus’ sermon (and some parts of Daniel for that matter) seem to drop seamlessly (perhaps there is a seam, I’m just not certain of it) from the events culminating in AD70 to the Second Coming, the resurrection, and the final judgment.

None of the interpretations above rule out a future recapitulation of these events, both throughout the history of the church, and at the end of the age. There is a reason that the preterist, historicist, idealist, and futurist views have all been heavily represented throughout church history, with many godly men in each camp who take the Scripture and the right interpretation of it very seriously. Each has some very strong arguments and none are without serious difficulties. I was once a settled and confident dispensational Pre-mil with an argument. Now I’m no longer dispensational and somewhat up in the air with the rest, not fully satisfied with any of the 3 millennial paradigms. The more I study the details of these prophecies and their respective interpretations, the more I’m becoming convinced that the ambiguities and difficulties are intentional, and that we ought to hold our view with much humility, devoting our focus to faithfully preaching Christ to our generation, and being confident of 3 things:

1. The Lord Jesus certainly came in judgment against Jerusalem in AD66-70, with all of the significance inherent in that.

2. He certainly comes in judgment throughout history, executing justice on behalf of his church against those who would oppose the gospel and persecute his body, as well as bringing judgment upon those churches that have ceased to be faithful to their Lord (hence Rev 2-3).

3. He will certainly come in judgment at the end of the age, with all of the significance inherent in that.

Perhaps this is trite, but here is my current personal application of the 3 millennial views (all of which I think have some strong arguments in their favor, leaving me somewhat uncertain as to the correct one):

1. I desire to plan and preach like a post-mil, settling in for the long haul and expecting the gospel to overcome the darkness of unbelief and for Christ to be worshipped in every nation.

2. I desire to watch and pray like a pre-mil, looking and hoping for the blessed coming of our Savior, and holding the lightly the things of this present age, knowing that a better inheritance awaits.

Father, this is your mission first and foremost. You sent your Son and to him will be the gathering of all nations. Lord, equip us to be a part of this great work, and to experience the joy of serving you for achieving the obedience of all nations for the sake of Christ’s name. And grant more grace, knowledge, wisdom, comfort, boldness, and opportunity to those who are already out there, who have already committed to the task you’ve given us. Thank you Father for permitting us to share in the glorifying of you Son among all the peoples of the earth.

Anti-Psalm 50

Thu, 20 May 2010 09:47:00 +0000

After reading an article from the Journal of Biblical Counseling, I learned a technique for meditating on and applying the Psalms. It is to take the Psalm and invert it to play out the implications of the opposite perspective. You can see examples of this by David Powlison with Psalm 23 and Psalm 131. This is an anti-psalm I wrote for Psalm 50:16-22. Psalm 50:16-22 – God’s message to the wicked (Me)

But to the wicked God says: “What right have you to recite my statutes or take my covenant on your lips? For you hate discipline, and you cast my words behind you. If you see a thief, you are pleased with him, and you keep company with adulterers.

“You give your mouth free rein for evil, and your tongue frames deceit. You sit and speak against your brother; you slander your own mother’s son. These things you have done, and I have been silent; you thought that I was one like yourself. But now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you.

“Mark this, then, you who forget God, lest I tear you apart, and there be none to deliver!

Anti-Psalm 50:16-22 – God’s message to the righteous (Jesus)

But to the righteous God says: “It makes sense for you to speak of my statutes and teach other of my covenant. For you love discipline, and my words are continually before you. You are pleased with those who give charitably and do not steal, and you keep company with the faithful.

“You control your tongue and speak that which is good and edifying, speaking the truth at all times to all people. You stand and speak in defense of your brother, you answer every accusation against him. These things you have done, and I will declare it: You are a son after my own heart, and with you I am pleased. Now I commend you and will vindicate you against your enemies.

“Know this, you who remember God, I myself will hold you together, and I will deliver you with my own hand.

At the cross, God dealt with Jesus as if he were Psalm 50, so that at the resurrection we might stand with him as Anti-Psalm 50.

Praying Philippians 4

Wed, 19 May 2010 09:44:00 +0000

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Phil 4:4-7)

Lord, Giver of light and fountain of everlasting joy
Creator of heaven and earth, the seas and all that is in them
Merciful and gracious sovereign,
Who works all things according to the counsel of your immutable will,
Who stoops to comfort the lowly and brings low the haughty,
Who took my curse upon yourself, my sin,
Who works all things together for good for those who love you,
Who is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love,

Forgive me for not rejoicing at all times and in all circumstances.
Your mercies are abundant every day, and all that I enjoy is a gift from you. You teach me to walk in your paths and be humble before you.

Forgive me for fear and unreasonableness which I put on display for all men.
You are the light of the world and you commanded us to let our light shine among men – cause me to shine!

Forgive me for anxiousness, for hinting to others of my own sacrifice. Lord, I’ve never made a sacrifice, and I have no grounds for boasting except in your sacrifice for me.

Forgive me for not coming to you with every need,
As if I could do anything apart from you. Take all my cares and help me, for I know you are mighty.

Forgive me for living with an ungrateful grumbling rather than a mesmerized thanksgiving.
You delivered me from Pharaoh with your mighty hand, and now I’m grumbling though you lead me toward the Promised Land.

Father, forgive me for these hidden faults, cleanse them from my heart by the blood of your Son Jesus, and fill me with your Spirit that I may taste and see and savor the peace of God which surpasses all understanding.

Reflecting on the Bible – Part 6 – Genesis 1 and Your Faith

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:35:00 +0000

Genesis 1 and Your Faith

Creation is the first and perhaps most difficult article of faith. The author of Hebrews writes, “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible” (Heb 11:3). The first thing the Bible commends to us, and expects us to believe is that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That by his word he created the visible world, not forming it out of preexistent matter, but simply calling it into existence. If we actually believe this, should anything else be in doubt? Augustine takes up this line of though as he argues that it is absurd to deny that God works visible miracles in the world, while holding that he is the creator of the world: For we cannot listen to those who maintain that the invisible God works no visible miracles; for even they believe that He made the world, which surely they will not deny to be visible. Whatever marvel happens in this world, it is certainly less marvelous than this whole world itself,—I mean the sky and earth, and all that is in them,—and these God certainly made. But, as the Creator Himself is hidden and incomprehensible to man, so also is the manner of creation. Although, therefore, the standing miracle of this visible world is little thought of, because always before us, yet, when we arouse ourselves to contemplate it, it is a greater miracle than the rarest and most unheard-of marvels. For man himself is a greater miracle than any miracle done through his instrumentality. Therefore God, who made the visible heaven and earth, does not disdain to work visible miracles in heaven or earth, that He may thereby awaken the soul which is immersed in things visible to worship Himself, the Invisible.” (City of God, Book X, Chapter 12)
Belief in God’s wisdom, as manifest in creation, calls us to trust him. When we don’t understand what God is doing, or why he has done something a certain way, we are called to “stop and consider the wondrous works of God” (Job 37:14). Remember the Person who has done them, the One whom we can know and love. Seek him and trust him. In the darkest hour, commit your soul to the faithful Creator (1 Peter 4:19). This is the way of our Lord Jesus, who in the darkest of hour of all, under the weight of the sin of the world and under the righteous indignation of his loving Father, c omitted his soul to God (Luke 23:46). This is also the way of those who follow in his footsteps, as Stephen did (Acts 7:59). Those for whom the LORD is shepherd, can rest in the fact that he is with them and that, however dark the valley, he knows the path and is leading the way (Psalm 23:4).
As Christ is heir of all that is God’s, those who are united to Christ by faith are heirs of all things with him. As we saw in Part 3, Jesus Christ is heir of all that is God’s. Even more amazing is the testimony that those who trust in the name of Christ have been born again into God’s family (John 1:12-13; 1 John 5:1) by the gospel, the “living and abiding word of God…the good news that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:23-25). This new birth is a new creation, in many ways parallel to the first creation, with God commanding light to shine in the darkness of our hearts that we might see and rejoice in the glory of God in Christ (2 Cor 4:4-6). The promise as children of God is that we have become co-heirs with Christ in glory. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.(Rom. 8:16-17; See also Gal. 4:6-7; 1 Pet 1:3-5).

Reflecting on the Bible – Part 5 – Genesis 1 and You

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:43:00 +0000

Genesis 1 and You

So far, we’ve learned quite a bit about God from the Bible’s reflection on Genesis 1. Can we learn anything about ourselves from this passage?

God created us in his own image. In the flow of the narrative in Genesis 1, the creation of mankind is the crowning achievement, the climax to which the rest of the story has been building to this point. It’s almost as if all of the preceding creative activity took place to prepare the environment for human beings. The repetitiveness of Gen 1:26-27 underscores the significance the author places on being created in the “image of God.” The uniqueness of humanity when compared with the other aspects of creation is firmly established in the first chapter of the Bible. Any notion that we are just like the other animals, only a bit more evolved, is incompatible with the biblical view of mankind. There is a fundamental qualitative difference.
God’s image in us is the foundation of respect for other humans. In Genesis 9:6, God declares that those who commit murder shall receive the death penalty, and his reason for this is that man is created in God’s image. From the beginning there is a requirement that human life be respected. But this respect goes beyond simply respecting life, but covers the respect of the whole person. James says that we should not even curse others, since they are made in the image of God (James 3:8-10). That’s as far as a Christian needs to go to determine how they should treat others. Without respect for age, ethnicity, social status, or capabilities (physical or intellectual), all who fall under the category of human are image-bearers and therefore should be treated with respect and dignity.
God appointed humanity as his representatives over creation, giving them dignity and solemn responsibility. God said, “Let them have dominion” over the rest of creatures on the earth (Gen 1:26). His first directive to humanity was to “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground” (Gen 1:28). It’s worth noting that this first command is actually a blessing (“And God blessed them…”). The gift of children is a blessing from the LORD (Psa 127:3). Beyond that, he blessed them with the dignity of being his agents in ruling creation. We know that “the earth is the LORD’s,” but he has delegated authority to mankind, his viceroys. When the psalmist contemplates the awe-inspiring works of God, and the smallness of humanity, he is led to ask, “What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” (Psalm 8:3-4). He cannot comprehend why God has given men such dignity as to be his kingly representatives over the created world (Psa. 8:5-8).
The fact of creation forms the foundation of Christian scientific inquiry. The command to fill the earth and subdue it, and the fact that we were created to worship our Creator, form the foundations of Christian engagement in science. In one respect, science is needed to understand how creation works, so that we may subdue, cultivate, and care for creation. At the same time, the fact that we understand the operation of nature to be the providential work of our majestic Creator leads us to an act of worship in which we are awed by the wonder of creation, while also seeking to discover the ways in which God works, much as a child desires to learn how his father does his work.
God created us good, but we have fallen into corruption through sin and rebellion. Understanding the truth of human sin is fundamental to gaining a clear view of the world in which we live. Without it, you’re bound to come up with the wrong diagnosis of the problem and will be unable to recognize the correct solution. The preacher declares that “God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes” (Eccl 7:29). Made in the very image of their Creator and crowned with dignity and honor, humanity chose to worship other creatures (including itself) rather than give praise and honor to the Creator (Rom 1:21-23). From Genesis 3 to Revelation 20, we see the effects of sin on every page. Though the image was not completely lost, it was marred and corrupted, such that the sin which plagues us is universal. One need look no farther than their own to see that corruption, and a simple perusal of the newspaper headlines will provide sufficient confirmation of the Christian doctrine of original sin. We were all “by nature children of wrath” (Eph 2:3).
Jesus Christ is the perfect image of God, and in him the marred image is being restored. He is the perfect image of God (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15), or as the author of Hebrews describes, “the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb 1:3). He is fully and truly man, yet without sin (Heb 4:15). If we want to know what humanity ought to look like, we should look to Jesus. He is also fully and truly God, sent by the Father to redeem out of sinful humanity a people for himself that would have the image of God restored, so that we will be his people and he will be our God. When we are born again we are given new hearts, a new self, which is “created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:24; also Col 3:10). The purpose of God’s plan of salvation from the very beginning, and the thing for which we seek, is to be conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29). Genuine humanity, as it was created to be and as we find it in Jesus, is the goal of the Christian life.

Reflecting on the Bible – Part 4 – Genesis 1 and God’s Faithfulness

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:41:00 +0000

Genesis 1 and God’s Faithfulness

A recurring theme in Scripture is the faithfulness of the God of Israel, usually contrasted with the unfaithfulness of the people and their idols. He is faithful to keep the promises he has made, faithful to act in conformity to his own character, in goodness, justice, mercy, and love, etc.

He existed before creation and will outlast everything, so God’s children can rest firm in him. Moses prayed to God, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psa 90:2). He has always been the protector and sustainer of his people, and when faced with their mortality as a result of sin and judgment, when the community is afflicted because of their transgression, the psalmist knows that the only recourse is to the eternal God, who alone can satisfy with his steadfast love and replace affliction and death with gladness and life (Psa. 90:3, 7, 13-15). Elsewhere, the oppressed one who cries out in the face of enemies and distress (Psa 102:2-11), puts hope in a faithful Creator who was here before these things and will outlast them all:Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. __They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, __but you are the same, and your years have no end. __The children of your servants shall dwell secure; their offspring shall be established before you. (Psalm 102:25-28)
As opposed to earthly rulers, the creator of heaven and earth can be fully trusted and will not disappoint. “Don’t put your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation” (Psa 146:3). Why not? Because he will die, returning to the dust from which he came, and all of the plans he had and promises he made will perish with him (Psa 146:4). Instead, we ought to put our trust in the LORD, “who keeps faith forever” (Psa 146:5-9). History is littered with the failed plans and unfulfilled dreams of those who have put their trust in humans and humanity to achieve peace, prosperity, and happiness. Instead, we ought to look to the one who made this universe and who rules over it, trusting that he know how it ought to function and that when we’re obeying him we are on the path to true peace, prosperity, and happiness – not in the way the world understands it, but as it truly is. There is a self-evident problem with the world and with humanity, and the solution will not be found in men, but in God.
**The regularity of nature gives us a glimpse into God’s faithfulness to his promises **In the face of judgment for their sins and exile from the land, the question must come up, “Has the LORD abandoned his people? Has he cast them off forever?” The people have broken covenant and Jeremiah bears witness to it, but God promises that the days are when he will make a new covenant with his people, writing his law on their hearts and forgiving their sin (Jer 31:31-34). What is the certainty of this? The same LORD who is responsible for the fixed order of the sun, moon, and stars, the one who brings about the tides of the ocean – this LORD declares that this promise is as sure as the regularity of these things (Jer 31:35-36). In other words, if you can be certain that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, you can be certain that he will keep his promise to make a new covenant, for it the same God who does both. Similarly, what about God’s promise to David (2 Sam 7:16) of an everlasting kingdom? Israel finds themselves in exile, with no king. Did God go back on his promise to David? He declares that he will indeed fulfill his promises to David (Jer 33:14-16), and the certainty of it is the same as that of the new covenant (Jer 33:20-21, 25-26).
God’s covenant to maintain the order of the created world is the rational foundation for scientific inquiry. This regularity of nature is something that we often take for granted, as if it’s inherent in existence itself. However, the Bible testifies that this regularity is a fulfillment of God’s promise, first made to Noah in Genesis 8:22. In our naturalistic culture, we often view these regularities as if they are perfectly rational – as if that’s the way it must be. We no longer view the laws of nature simply as descriptions of observed and dependable regularity, but have proceeded to draw the irrational connection that things must, of necessity, be this way and continue this way. In his classic book Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton puts this beautifully when he discusses how fairy tales approach reality more sanely than modern rationalism:

“It might be stated this way. There are certain sequences or developments (cases of one thing following another), which are, in the true sense of the word, reasonable. They are, in the true sense of the word, necessary. Such are mathematical and merely logical sequences. We in fairyland (who are the most reasonable of all creatures) admit that reason and that necessity. For instance, if the Ugly Sisters are older than Cinderella, it is (in an iron and awful sense) necessary that Cinderella is younger than the Ugly Sisters. There is no getting out of it. Haeckel may talk as much fatalism about that fact as he pleases: it really must be. If Jack is the son of a miller, a miller is the father of Jack. Cold reason decrees it from her awful throne: and we in fairyland submit. If the three brothers all ride horses, there are six animals and eighteen legs involved: that is true rationalism, and fairyland is full of it. But as I put my head over the hedge of the elves and began to take notice of the natural world, I observed an extraordinary thing. I observed that learned men in spectacles were talking of the actual things that happened – dawn and death and so on – as if they were rational and inevitable. They talked as if the fact that trees bear fruit were just as necessary as the fact that two and one trees make three. But it is not. There is an enormous difference by the test of fairyland; which is the test of the imagination. You cannot imagine two and one not making three. But you can easily imagine trees not growing fruit; you can imagine them growing golden candlesticks or tigers hanging on by the tail. … We have always in our fairy tales kept this sharp distinction between the science of mental relations, in which there really are laws, and the science of physical facts, in which there are no laws, but only weird repetitions. We believe in bodily miracles, but not in mental impossibilities. We believe that a Bean-stalk climbed up to Heaven; but that does not at all confuse our convictions on the philosophical question of how many beans make five.

Here is the peculiar perfection of tone and truth in the nursery tales. The man of science says, “Cut the stalk, and the apple will fall”; but he says it calmly, as if the one idea really led up to the other. The witch in the fairy tale says, “Blow the horn, and the ogre’s castle will fall”; but she does not say it as if it were something in which the effect obviously arose out of the cause. Doubtless she has given the advice to many champions, and has seen many castles fall, but she does not lose either her wonder or her reason. She does not muddle her head until it imagines a necessary mental connection between a horn and a falling tower. But the scientific men do muddle their heads, until they imagine a necessary mental connection between an apple leaving the tree and an apple reaching the ground. They do really talk as if they had found not only a set of marvellous facts, but a truth connecting those facts. They do talk as if the connection of two strange things physically connected them philosophically. They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two together somehow make up a comprehensible thing. Two black riddles make a white answer.

In fairyland we avoid the word “law”; but in the land of science they are singularly fond of it. Thus they will call some interesting conjecture about how forgotten folks pronounced the alphabet, Grimm’s Law. But Grimm’s Law is far less intellectual than Grimm’s Fairy Tales. The tales are, at any rate, certainly tales; while the law is not a law. A law implies that we know the nature of the generalisation and enactment; not merely that we have noticed some of the effects. If there is a law that pick-pockets shall go to prison, it implies that there is an imaginable mental connection between the idea of prison and the idea of picking pockets. And we know what the idea is. We can say why we take liberty from a man who takes liberties. But we cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken any more than we can say why a bear could turn into a fairy prince. As ideas, the egg and the chicken are further off from each other than the bear and the prince; for no egg in itself suggests a chicken, whereas some princes do suggest bears. Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we should regard them in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the “Laws of Nature.” When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o’clock. We must answer that it is magic. It is not a “law,” for we do not understand its general formula. It is not a necessity, for though we can count on it happening practically, we have no right to say that it must always happen. It is no argument for unalterable law (as Huxley fancied) that we count on the ordinary course of things. We do not count on it; we bet on it. We risk the remote possibility of a miracle as we do that of a poisoned pancake or a world-destroying comet. We leave it out of account, not because it is a miracle, and therefore an impossibility, but because it is a miracle, and therefore an exception. All the terms used in the science books, “law,” “necessity,” “order,” “tendency,” and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, “charm,” “spell,” “enchantment.” They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a magic tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched.”(29-30)

This is not to deny the value of scientific inquiry, discovery of the regularities of nature, and the explanation of observed causes and effects. On the contrary, only the worldview which understands the Creator God as the guarantor of this regularity and which sees the universe as a linear progression has a true rational basis for its science.

Jesus Christ is the sustainer of the created order. “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:1-3). Elsewhere, we understand that he is “before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). The one who was deserted by all, even his closest of friends, is the same one who gives to all sunshine and rain, seasons and celebration. The one who was slain on the cross by humans, is the same one who gives to all humans breath and life and everything. He remained faithful, even to death, and through this faithfulness has brought life to those who believe. “The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:9-13)

Reflecting on the Bible – Part 3 – Genesis 1 and God’s Possessions

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:25:00 +0000

Genesis 1 and God’s Possessions

The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof,
the world and those who dwell therein,
for he has founded it upon the seas
and established it upon the rivers.
(Psalm 24:1-2)

Since God is the Creator of all things, he is their rightful owner. As the psalmist declared above, the whole earth belongs to God, and everything in it (including us). In Jeremiah, the Lord says, “It is I who by my great power and my outstretched arm have made the earth, with the men and animals that are on the earth, and I give it to whomever it seems right to me” (Jer. 27:5). The Bible makes several applications of this truth:

1) God is sovereign over his creation. God has total freedom in the way he deals with creation. This is not simply “might makes right,” but more like “the world is rightfully mine, and I will do what I please with it.” This means that if he determines it is right to hand the whole world over to Nebuchadnezzar, then he is free to do so. This is often not on our grid, but God himself determines the boundaries and reign of nations and peoples, and he does so to carry out his purposes on the earth (Acts 17:26; Job 12:23; Deut 32:8). King Nebuchadnezzar came to realize this after his humiliation (Dan 4:34-35). Since all belong to him, all are subject to his authority without exception, whether willing or rebellious. As John Frame describes in his book, Doctrine of God, “His authority is so universal that when he speaks, things that don’t exist obey by coming into existence” (paraphrase).

2) Every created thing is good when used properly. The apostle Paul applies this truth to the question of whether the Corinthians could eat foods in the marketplace or at someone’s house which might have been sacrificed to idols. Paul says to eat freely, without asking questions, for the whole earth belongs to the Lord (1 Cor. 10:25-26). It is only for the sake of the other person’s conscience (if they mention that it had been sacrificed) that the food shouldn’t be eaten. The guiding principle here is that all things were made by God and declared by him to be good. The fact that the meat is sacrificed to idols does not change the properties of the meat itself, rendering it evil. The evil is in the idolatrous heart, so we abstain when it may lead someone astray, or when eating involves participating in idolatry. Jesus strikes a similar note in Luke 10:8, and is even more explicit elsewhere (Mark 7:14-23). God’s judgment in Genesis 1 stands (Gen 1:10,12,18,21,25,31) – all that he created is good and nothing to be rejected, if received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4). In another place we read, “To the pure all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure…” (Titus 1:15). The impurity arises not because of anything inherent in the creation, but from a deviation of its intended purpose and appropriate use. This applies to every substance and every activity under the sun – whether food, sex, recreation, or anything else. For believers who know the truth, determining the lawful use or abstinence of these things falls under the all-encompassing rubric of “the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31; Col 3:17; 1 Pet 4:11). This is not lawlessness, but the only true kind of lawfulness – with the law of God written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

3) Everything we have is a gift. In David’s prayer before the assembly, he acknowledges a critical implication of God’s ownership – that nothing we have is ours, except what he has given us as a gift. When all of the offerings for the temple were brought forward by the people, David says, “Blessed are you, O Lord, the God of Israel our father, forever and ever. Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all. Both riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all. In your hand are power and might, and in your hand it is to make great and to give strength to all. And now we thank you, our God, and praise your glorious name. But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly? For all things come from you, and of your own have we given you. For we are strangers before you and sojourners, as all our fathers were. Our days on the earth are like a shadow, and there is no abiding. O Lord our God, all this abundance that we have provided for building you a house for your holy name comes from your hand and is all your own” (1 Chron 29:10-16). Our entire lives ought to be shaped by this doxology. The way we hold onto (or let go of) our possessions, the way we spend our time, the way we view ourselves in relation to others, and the way we worship should be shaped by this understanding that there is nothing we have that we have not first received as a gift.
As creation’s owner, God takes responsibility for maintaining and upholding it. The God who made and owns this universe, also cares for it, tends to it, and maintains it. The Bible leaves no room for the Deistic image of a creator God who sets the wheels in motion and then sits back to see how things turn out. Far from it. Instead, we find an amazing picture of God’s care down to the smallest detail of his creation. Psalm 104 paints this beautifully. Zooming in from laying the foundations of the earth, to forming the mountains and valleys, to bringing forth the streams of water, we find God “causing the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate” (Psa 104:14). He provides trees for shelter, and even provides the food for lions (Psa 104:21). The psalmist is not ignorant of secondary causes. The agrarian society knew well that seeds needed planted and watered and that lions hunted their pray, but they rightly understood that these things ultimately come from the Lord. Jesus also teaches us that God feeds the birds, and clothes the grass of the field (Matt 6:26-30). We should rejoice in God’s care and admire it, and as Jesus says, we should learn to trust our Father’s loving hand, who keeps track even of the very hairs on our head (Luke 12:7).
As God’s Son, Jesus Christ is heir to all that is God’s and exercises all of the authority which is rightfully God’s. In Psalm 2, the Lord declares to the Messiah: “Ask me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, the ends of the earth as your personal property” (Psalm 2:8 NET). In Daniel 7, he is granted the reign and rule over all of God’s creation (Dan. 7:13-14). Jesus lays claim to this inheritance, declaring that it is he who has been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:20) and everything that is God’s is his (Matt. 11:27; John 3:35; 5:26-27; 13:3; 17:2). We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who is and who was, for you have taken your great power and begun to reign (Rev. 11:15-17)

Watergate and the Resurrection of Christ

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:58:00 +0000

In his book Loving God, Chuck Colson recounts his experiences inside of the Nixon administration during the Watergate scandal. He discusses how even though the cover-up technically went back to the June, 1972 break-in, the real cover up – the one which should be obviously illegal to everyone involved – began on March 21, 1973 and ended on April 8, 1973. A small group of people, all fiercely loyal to their leader, President Nixon, could not keep a conspiracy going for longer than two weeks. Despite of all the power available to them, and all that they had sacrificed in their commitment to President Nixon, within a few weeks they jumped ship one-by-one and struck a deal to attempt to cover themselves. He writes:

_Think of what was at stake: Each of us involved – Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Mitchell, and the rest – believed passionately in President Nixon. To enter government service for him we had sacrificed very lucrative private law practices and other endeavors; we had sacrificed our family lives and privacy; we had invested our whole lives in the work, twenty-four hours a day if necessary…

Think of the privileges: a call to the military aide’s office would produce a limousine or jet airplane; the National Gallery delivered classic paintings to adorn our office walls; red-jacketed stewards stood in waiting to serve food and drink twenty-four hours a day; private phones appeared wherever we traveled; secret service men were always within sight – as many as we wanted.

Yet even the prospect of jeopardizing the President we’d worked so hard to elect, of losing the prestige, power, and personal luxury of our offices was not enough incentive to make this group of men contain a lie. Nor, as I reflect today, was the pressure really all that great; at that point there had certainly been moral failures, criminal violations, even perjury by some. There was certain to be keen embarrassment; at the worst, some might go to prison, though that possibility was by no means certain. But no one was in grave danger; no one’s life was at stake._ (p. 67)

In many respects, what took place is simply the human instinct for self-preservation and can be witnessed in any number of scenarios where someone is faced with unpleasant consequences if they choose to uphold a lie. Colson then goes on to draw a connection to the events surrounding the resurrection of Christ. If Christ was not raised, and the tomb was empty because the disciples, and 500 others (1 Cor 15:6), had conspired to steal the body and lie about it, why would we expect anything different from them? This was a group of people who had no power, who had nothing to gain and everything to lose by upholding the lie, and whose loyalty to their leader, if he was really still dead, meant absolutely nothing. Their persistent confession in the face of torture and death and their zealous evangelistic efforts are incredibly difficult to account for in light of this. While this may be an old and very common apologetic for the resurrection, it is interesting to see the sociological confirmation in a contemporary event such as Watergate.

Whether you’re a Christian or not, you must come up with an answer to what you do with the resurrection. The historic rise and present existence of Christianity demands it. There is an historical record intact all the way back to a rag-tag group of disciples who maintained that they had been eye-witnesses to the resurrection and subsequent ascension of Jesus (and had spoken to, touched, and eaten with him over a period of 40 days), and who chose to be ostracized, beaten, and killed rather than deny it.

Reflecting on the Bible – Part 2 – Genesis 1 and God

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:57:00 +0000

Genesis 1 and God

The first and most important thing we can learn about creation from the Bible is what it tells us about God himself. We read in Psalm 19:1-2 that the glory of God is proclaimed in all of creation. What is creation proclaiming about God?

He is there, eternal and powerful. It is worth noting that the Bible never attempts to argue for God’s existence. His existence is axiomatic in a very real sense, it is a self-evident truth. Romans 1:19-20 declares that through the things God has made, his eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen – so much so that those who behold this creation and yet refuse to worship him with praise and thanksgiving are said to be without excuse. How can you stand and look out onto the ocean without a sense of awe? Or look over a precipice at the Grand Canyon and not be amazed? Or peer into the expanse of the galaxies, knowing that you can see stars at incomprehensible distances but are only beholding a tiny fraction of the universe, and not be filled with wonder? Likewise, how can you look into an electron microscope and see the incredible complexity and activity of the smallest organisms and not be fascinated? Or consider the findings of quantum physics and not tremble? All of these things trigger in us the built-in and unquenchable desire for worship and should point us to their Creator, bringing us to our knees in humble adoration.
He is incomparably wise. The fact that this universe, in all its complexity and intricate detail, was designed and created by God is a testimony to his wisdom. In Proverbs 8:22-30, Wisdom personified proclaims how God possessed her at the beginning of his work of creation and that she was present during the whole process. This should always be in our mind whenever we feel drawn to question the way God has done something, or to doubt whether obedience to his command in a specific matter is really the best way. In the book of Job, the first 35 chapters are a series of dialogues in which Job seeks to bring an indictment against God for the way he has dealt with Job. God’s first response is not to defend himself to Job, but to remind him what he already knows (Job 28:22-28), namely, that true wisdom is found in God alone. He does this by asking Job if he too was around when God laid the foundations of the world (Job 38:4-11). The question itself serves to contrast God’s perfect knowledge with Job’s lack of it, and to point out the ridiculousness of the creature contending with his Creator. A similar tone is struck in Isaiah 40, where God proclaims his incomparable greatness, including his wisdom in creation (Isa 40:13-26).
He is distinct from his creation and not dependant on it. God’s existed before creation and is separate from it. Before God created, there was nothing but him, and everything that exists does so because he spoke it into existence. In Acts 17:24-25, Paul declares that the God who made the universe needs nothing from it. He doesn’t depend on his creatures for anything, but we depend on him for everything. Any view of God that leaves him dependant on his creatures for happiness or fulfillment is deficient. Likewise, any view that fails to distinguish God from his creation is deficient. This contradicts several worldviews which are common today, including materialism (the material world is all there is - no God), pantheism (the world is God, in whole or in part), and dualism (the world is distinct from and co-eternal with God).
The fact that God is creator of all things makes him worthy of worship. Why should we worship God? When contemplating God’s character and all of his works, there are many things that can and should cause us to worship him. However, the most frequently cited reason why God should be worshipped is the fact that he created all things, including us. This is universally true, and therefore the obligation to worship is universal. The psalmist exhorts all the inhabitants of the world to fear the LORD, and to stand in awe of him. Why? Because he spoke the universe into being by his mighty word (Psa. 33:6-9). In the book of Revelation, the 24 elders worshipping before the throne sing this chorus:

Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
To receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.
(Rev. 4:11)

God doesn’t need to do anything to become worthy of our worship. His very existence as our creator makes him worthy.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, which brought the universe into being. The mystery of the Trinity is at work in the creation of the universe itself. The eternal Word of God, who is God, and who is the Son of God the Father, prior to becoming flesh and dwelling as the son of a carpenter in Galilee, brought the universe into being (John 1:1-3; Heb. 1:10-12). There is a fellowship and a love within the Godhead that precedes any created thing (John 17:5) and it is out of this love that creation takes place. All things were made by Christ and for Christ (Col. 1:15-16). All of our thoughts about Jesus Christ should be framed by this understanding. All of the things we spoke about the Creator, we speak about Christ, and all of the worship we owe to our Creator, we owe to Christ.

Reflecting on the Bible – Part 1

Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:20:00 +0000

Whenever I read the Bible, particularly when I’m reading through familiar sections, there is a risk that even though I am reading it, I’m not actually listening to what God has said (and is saying) through it. I am reading the words and hopefully even following the plotline of the story, yet oftentimes I do not take the time to think about what I’ve read and reflect on the significance of it. It is this thought and reflection that the Bible refers to as meditation. Far from the popular notion of passivity, or spending hours cross-legged on the floor in a trance-like state, this meditation is active and engaged. It involves contemplating and considering what the text says, why it says what it does, and what the implications of this are. It begins while we’re reading, but should continue throughout the day. During a lull in the day’s activities, while waiting in line or in traffic, or instead of being distracted by the noisiness of life and the unlimited forms of entertainment which surround us, the mind focuses in on the text again and continues to think about what it means. It is this persistent and prayerful reflection, combined with an obedient heart, which leads to true wisdom and discernment.

O how I love your law!
All day long I meditate on it.
Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies,
for I am always aware of them.
I have more insight than all my teachers,
for I meditate on your rules.
I am more discerning than those older than I,
for I observe your precepts.
(Psalm 119:97-99; see also Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:14-16)

A difficulty arises when we think about this in the face of our fast-paced, instant-results culture. In many respects, we’ve forgotten how to think or reflect. It’s not enough to say, “I need to seek wisdom from God through prayer and meditation on Scripture.” The problem is that I don’t know how to meditate or what the results of it should be. When I read a passage from the Bible, I get what is said, but I’m often left with a “so what?” feeling, or an “I already know that story” reaction. There is certainly much to be gleaned directly from the surface of many texts and this is a blessing, but when it comes to plumbing the depths and thinking through the significance of an ancient text for our life today things are much more difficult. What are we to do? How can we learn how to reflect on the Bible? A good place to start in a quest for the answer is in the pages of the Bible itself. Since the composition of the Bible in its present form took place over the course of 1500 years, an interesting phenomenon develops. As you progress through the text, you’ll find that the Bible contains much reflection, interpretation, analysis, and application of itself. Many of the prophets, apostles, and holy men of millennia past, whose Spirit-inspired words now make up the text of our Bible, were themselves students of Scripture, meditating day and night in the pursuit of wisdom from God, and the result of those meditations can found throughout their writings.

An excellent demonstration of this is Genesis 1. Undoubtedly one of the most familiar passages in the Bible, since every Bible reading plan starts here and it is often brought into discussions on various topics. This familiarity is what leads to some of the feelings expressed above. I already know what it says – “God created the world, he created plants, animals, humans, six days, so on…” What significance does this have for us? Is there any value in continued meditation and reflection on Genesis 1? Beyond any insight into the creation vs. evolution discussion about cosmic origins, is there any wisdom to be gained from the truths set forth in this chapter or should I just continue reading on to Genesis 2?

In a series of posts, I’d like to engage in an exercise where I ask this question of the other biblical authors and seek out their reflections on Genesis 1 and the truth of God as Creator. Through this, I hope to not only learn more about God and his world, but also to gain some insight into how the biblical authors reflected on and applied Scripture, which would help me to sharpen my own ability to reflect on and apply Scripture. The method is simple and can be done by anyone. First, I begin with Genesis 1, seeking to understand the flow of the story and paying attention to the emphases and details along the way. Next, I collect the cross-references found in a few different Bibles (since the cross-references vary among versions, I use 3 Bibles which I’ve found to have helpful cross-reference systems – ESV, NASB, and Cambridge KJV Reference edition). Using those cross-references, I look for quotations, allusions, or reflections that are relevant to the subject matter of Genesis 1. For each reference, I ask “What is the text saying?” and “How is the author understanding or applying the truths of Genesis 1?”

I will post the results of this exercise under the 5 headings below:

More on Genealogies - “A whole bunch of dead folks…”

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:35:00 +0000

I asked the question previously, “What do you do with genealogies?” In particular, the really intimidating ones like 1 Chronicles 1-9. Does anyone preach on these? Would anyone dare? Should they dare? I searched an online sermon database, and with the exception of the Prayer of Jabez, 1 Chronicles 1-9 was left untouched. There was one pastor I forgot about who I thought might just be willing to attempt to expound and apply this text. I recently finished a book by Dale Ralph Davis called The Word Became Fresh. It’s a short but worthwhile read on how we should approach, interpret, and apply the Old Testament narrative texts. I highly recommend this book to anyone who struggles through some of the Old Testament history and wonders what they should do with it. This books does a good job of showing you why these texts matter, how to apply them, and how not to apply them. I thought that perhaps he might have something useful to say on 1 Chronicles 1-9, and it turns out that he does.

On Advent Sunday 2004, he preached a sermon on this text entitled, “A whole bunch of dead folks for Christmas,” which I found to be incredibly helpful. If you’re wondering how the genealogies of Chronicles relate to you and what they have to do with Jesus, check out the sermon here:

A whole bunch of dead folks for Christmas

Genealogies in the Bible

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:13:00 +0000

I’m never really sure what to do with the genealogies in the Bible. Other people have taught me a bit about the significance of some of them, but it is certainly a struggle. The “and he died” of Genesis 5 underscores that the sentence against Adam and Eve was carried out as promised and that it affected their descendants in the same manner. The short one at the end of Ruth informs us that this story carries significance beyond the immediate events, and would produce King David, from whom the Messiah would come. Speaking of which, the genealogy of Matthew one is perhaps the most perspicuous in its theology, subversive as it may be. The fact that he includes 4 women (which itself is unheard of) – including an incestuous relationship, a gentile prostitute, a gentile saint, and an adulterous affair – points to the significance of this King, who would be Savior of Jew and Gentile, male and female, sinner and saint. But what of all the other genealogies? What about 9 chapters of it in 1 Chronicles? I venture to guess that others have plumbed the depths of even these and found edification. After all, they are part of “all scripture” (2 Tim 3:16). I’m still not sure what to do with them. Certainly, there are pieces here and there that some have made use of, such as the infamous Prayer of Jabez (1 Chr 4:9-10). A quick search of sermon central shows that this might be the only passage in 9 chapters which have found their way into the pulpit. Surely there’s more to it than that, right? After all, the author seems to have been quite intentional in beginning his work in this manner. 1 Chronicles seems to seek continuity between the pre-exilic people and those who have returned to the land, with a special emphasis on the house of David, the tribe of Judah, and the tribe of Levi. One thing that strikes me is all of the untold stories that exist alongside the people whose lives have been set forth in Scripture. God is carrying out His purposes in history, and the Bible records many generations of people who lived and died with little or no fanfare, undoubtedly many of them wicked and some of them faithful, but all playing some role in this grand drama of redemption.

I suppose that it’s thoughts like the above that would incline someone to read a book with a title like The Chronicler’s Genealogies: Towards an understanding of 1 Chronicles 1-9. Unless our confession is merely lip service, it would seem to me that there’s value in such a study. Here’s some more stuff on genealogies from a quick search:

A storm is coming (1 Chronicles 1-9)

Nine Purposes of Biblical Genealogies

Avoid genealogies?

The Conqueror of My Soul

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:56:00 +0000

William Henley’s famous poem Invictus provides a picture of the groundless defiance of humanism in the face of a cold, unrelenting, and hopeless Universe:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

In brilliant contrast, Dorothea Day’s Conquered presents the assured dependence of the conquered Christian in the arms of the loving, merciful, and sovereign Lord of the Universe:

Out of the light that dazzles me,
Bright as the sun from pole to pole,
I thank the God I know to be
For Christ the conqueror of my soul.

Since His the sway of circumstance
I would not wince nor cry aloud.
Under the rule which men call chance
My head with joy is humbly bowed.

Beyond this place of sin and tears—
That life with Him! and His the aid,
That spite the menace of the years,
Keeps, and shall keep, me unafraid.

I shall not fear, though straight the gate;
He cleared from punishments the scroll.
Christ is the Master of my fate;
Christ is the Captain of my soul.

Lord's Prayer (Children's Lesson)

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0000

Jesus Taught Us to Pray God our Father, help us to…

Honor You

Obey You

Pray to You for help and forgiveness

Enter into Your rest

Explanation

Jesus is God’s very special son and he knows how to talk to God better than anyone. Jesus loves us so much that he taught us how we should talk to God too.

God our Father, help us to (Our Father who is in heaven)

Honor You (Hallowed be your name)

“What does it mean to honor someone?” Respect, praise, etc
“Why do we honor God?” God is so great and so good that he deserves everyone’s honor. He made us so that we can honor him.
“How can we honor God?” We should tell him he’s great, sing to him, etc

Obey You (Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven)

You know how else we can honor God? We honor God when we obey him
“What does it mean to obey?” To listen and to do what God says
In heaven, everyone always obeys God, but here on earth people to not always obey God
“Does anyone here always obey God?” We’re supposed to always honor God, but many times we don’t honor him. When we disobey our parents, we’re not honoring God. When we are mean to others, or when we lie or steal, we are not honoring God. It’s a bad thing to disobey God and not honor him. This is called sin. Since God is so good, he doesn’t like sin at all and he punishes those who sin.
“Since God doesn’t like sin, how can he love us since we sin?” God loves us so much that he doesn’t want us to sin. He gave us his very special son Jesus to save us from sin. God says that if you believe in Jesus, he forgives you when you disobey him and helps you to obey and honor him. Jesus died for us, so that we don’t have to be punished and then he came back to life so that we can obey God. That’s how much he loves us!

Pray to You for help and forgiveness (Give us our daily food, and forgive our sins, as we forgive others)

If we believe in Jesus, we can ask God to forgive us when we disobey. Not only that, but since God forgives us, we can forgive other people who are mean to us or hurt us.
“What does it mean to forgive?”
We can also ask God to give us the things we need – like food, and clothes, and anything else we need to obey God. Jesus said we don’t have to worry about any of that. He will take care of us.

Enter into Your rest (Do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one)

We also ask God to keep us safe in him our whole life and to protect us from bad people who don’t want us to trust God and obey him. God helps us to keep trusting him so that one day we will meet Jesus in person, and be able to stay with him forever.

“Does anyone know what these letters spell - H-O-P-E?” Hope. What does hope mean? Hope is when we look forward to something. When we hope in God, we look forward to all the wonderful things that he promises us. We trust him to take care of everything when we’re worried or scared, to forgive us when we disobey him, to give us what we need, and to keep us safe in him until we see Jesus. God is honored when he HOPE in him for everything.

Song

God our Father, help us to

Honor you and obey you (raise hands toward heaven)

We pray to you for help and forgiveness (clasp hands and bow head in prayer)

So that we may enter into your rest (tilt head and place clasped hands in cheek like you’re sleeping)

God we HOPE in you (raise hands toward heaven)

Yes we HOPE in you (raise hands toward heaven)

Eternal Sonship (Adam Clarke Refuted)

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:44:00 +0000

Regardless of where you stand on the issues of generation, derivation, and other debated aspects of the Trinity (and they are much debated by orthodox theologians), I think the denial of Eternal Sonship is unnecessary. Adam Clarke (and Albert Barnes too, for that matter) misses the forest for the trees in this respect. The entire revelation of the Trinity in scripture is based on this Father/Son relationship. All of the imagery of redemption, the revelation of God’s love, the assurance of hope, etc, is based on the fact that this is a revelation of eternal realities. Jesus Christ, in the flesh, being declared the Son of God, only has significance as it relates to eternal realities. The beauty of the gospel is bound up in the love of the Father for his Son, and the love of the Son for his Father. This is the language of the Bible, and this is how God has revealed himself. You think you are protecting the deity of Christ by denying Eternal Sonship, but what you are doing is stripping away the eternal significance of the gospel. Without the relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit that is revealed in Scripture, you either have no Trinity (because no distinction) or you have 3 nameless deities (because no unity). There is no revelation of a “First Person of the Trinity” outside of the revelation of God as Father. There is no revelation of a “Second Person of the Trinity” outside of the revelation of God as Son of the Father. There is no revelation of a “Third Person of the Trinity” outside of the revelation of God as Holy Spirit sent by the Father and Son.

Adam Clarke was a respected Wesleyan Methodist theologian and Bible scholar. He was a much smarter and more educated man than I am. The same can also be said of Athanasius and Arius, Augustine and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius, so on and so forth. He is also trained in the art of rhetoric and is adept at presenting his views in an authoritative and convincing manner. For this reason, while one can undoubtedly gain much insight from Clarke’s Commentary, one should read with a critical eye, and also read his opponents on various issues (as well as current scholarship). This is true of any commentary and particularly true when the conclusions reached conflict with established historic orthodoxy. I concur with Spurgeon’s assessment of Clarke’s commentaries:

“If you have a copy of Adam Clarke, and exercise discretion in reading it, you will derive immense advantage from it, for frequently by a sort of side light he brings out the meaning of the text in an astonishingly novel manner. I do not wonder that Adam Clarke still stands, notwithstanding his peculiarities, a prince among commentators…He has often lost sight of his better judgment in following learned singularities; the monkey, instead of the serpent, tempting Eve, is a notable instance.”

Clarke did not write his comments in a vacuum and his specific position on Eternal Sonship was quite controversial in its time, with several books being written in response pointing out the flaws in Clarke’s reasoning as well as laying out the scriptural foundations for Eternal Sonship. I’ve attempted to recreate some of those arguments below (by no means exhaustive). Pretty much everything written below was already set forth 175 years ago in response to Clarke’s positions (and other contemporaries).

Clarke argues:

1. I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it.

2. If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for son implies a father; and father implies, in reference to son, precedency in time, if not in nature too. Father and son imply the idea of generation; and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation.

3. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his Divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him.

4. Again, if this Divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i.e. there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead.

5. To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to Time. Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas.

The enemies of Christ’s Divinity have, in all ages, availed themselves of this incautious method of treating this subject, and on this ground, have ever had the advantage of the defenders of the Godhead of Christ.

Response to Clarke:

1. By “express declaration”, I can only assume he means the doctrine cannot be inferred from the evidence of scripture. If he means anything more, the same argument could be made for the Trinity itself (arguments over the validity of 1 John 5:7 notwithstanding). That Clarke cannot find any express declaration from scripture cannot (obviously) be decisive for anyone but himself, and if we can demonstrate that such evidence exists then this point is sufficiently refuted.

2. Aside from point 1, the remaining argument is purely philosophical, working from two presuppositions:

A. Points 2 and 3 assume that “son” must imply a priority of essential being in the “father”

B. Points 3 and 4 assume that the term “son” must imply beginning of existence

Assumption A:

That the term “son” must imply a priority of essential being in the father. This assumption is proved false by a comparison of the natures of the human father and son.

To demonstrate:

The father begets the son, but the son is no less human than the father. Furthermore, because he is not newly created at birth, but rather was created and existed in Adam, the father and son are very much equal in nature and existence. The human father and son already exist in an essential way when Adam was created.

This concept is demonstrated in the Bible:

1. In Hebrews 7:9-10, it can be said that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek because he existed in the loins of his ancestor Abraham.

2. The doctrine of depravity has all men dying in Adam (Rom 5:12-21; 1Co 15:21-22)

Assumption B:

That the term “son” must imply beginning of existence. This assumption is sufficiently refuted by considering the following propositions (taken from William Beauchamp’s treatment of Clarke):

1. Every term in application to man, must always imply limitation of nature, and beginning of existence.

2. No term in application to Deity can imply limitation of nature, or beginning of existence; and therefore every term applied to him must always be taken, in such a sense as is consistent with the divine infinitude.

3. It is undeniably true, that the inspired writers have applied many terms to God which they have applied to man.

4. It is not less undeniable that the implication of these terms, in both these applications, cannot be precisely the same.

5. Therefore there are terms, which are not inapplicable to the divine nature of Christ, although such terms imply limitation when applied to man.

6. And therefore every argument, predicated on the implication of any term taken in the sense in which it is used in reference to finite beings, must be sophistical and destitute of strength, when the conclusion is drawn in reference to the infinite nature of God because in this case the conclusion must contain more than the premises.

7. It will be admitted, that the term son, in all its applications to man, implies limitation of nature, and beginning of existence. But from this it will not follow, that it must always have this implication when applied to Christ, and that therefore it is utterly inapplicable to his divine nature.

Other Minor Objections:

1. That eternity does not “stand in any reference to Time” is a interesting statement. Beauchamp again:

“What! Does eternity stand in no reference to time? Or time bears no relation to eternity? Is not eternity boundless duration? And is not time limited duration? If they are both duration, is not their nature the same? Is not time a part of eternity? No reasonable man will deny that it is. If time is a part of eternity, then, in the name of common sense, how can it be said, that eternity stands in no reference to time? The truth is, time has a close relation to eternity.”

2. The statement that the enemies of Christ’s Divinity “have ever had the advantage of the defenders of the Godhead of Christ” is a peculiar understanding of history. Since the Council of Nicaea, the Deity of Christ has been firmly entrenched in orthodox Christian doctrine and vehemently defended everywhere outside of the cults and some small sectarian denominations. While it certainly falls under attack, to say that the enemies have had the advantage is an interesting assessment.

Further Objections to the Denial of Eternal Sonship

1. The Word – Proponents of Incarnational Sonship maintain that before the Incarnation, Christ existed eternally as the Word, rather than the Son. The reasoning (as seen above by Clarke) is that Son implies time and origin. However, the same logic applies to the Word. Quoting James Kidd:

“The presumed inferiority, which is expressed in the term Son, is also found, to the same extent, in that of Word:—for speech or word, according to our ideas, is uniformly posterior to the actual existence of the person who employs it.”

He goes on to demonstrate the term Word is actually void of any inherent relationship aspect:

“ But the grand objection to the use of the expression The Word, indicative of the related state of the second person in the Godhead, is found in this circumstance, that it indicates no participation or affiliation of nature. It is only a quality inhering in the nature, and not the nature itself. The universal consent of mankind and the agreement of all nations coalesce in this definition of the term.— Predicated of any person, it may exhibit the character of that person, in that particular aspect to which the quality refers, but it can never denote a related state existing between him and another.”

And this void is shown in John’s usage of the Logos, and his necessary transition away from it to discuss relation:

“The writer says, ‘And we beheld his glory,’ viz. the glory of The Word; he then wishes to convey a notion of that glory, to effect which, he suddenly breaks off to another description, involving other ideas, viz. those of a related state; ‘this glory’ he says, was ‘the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,’ John, then, (verses 15—18.) bears witness of this person who was The Word, who had glory as ‘The Word,’ and ‘as of the only Begotten of the Father.’ He expressly declares that he is ‘the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.’ The tenor of these verses is impressively forcible. John endeavours to portray the eternal existence of The Word, and his external procedure in creation. He endeavours to describe the glory of The Word, but failing to exhibit it clearly, in that character, to the intellects of men, he directly refers to the state in which The Word was, for a display of his glory, viz. his related state ‘as the only begotten of the Father.’ In the subsequent part of his work, the Evangelist ceases to mention this person under his denomination of The Word, and continues to designate him by other expressions, generally indicative of his related state.”

Scriptural Evidence for the Eternal Sonship

References to the whole Christ (both human and Divine natures) as Son

1. Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The glory as of the Son from the Father is the glory of the eternal Word (deity) made flesh (humanity).

2. Heb 1:1-4 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

Here we have both natures in view again, with the union of humanity and deity “making purification for sins” and the Deity “through whom also he created the world.”

3. Col 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Our redemption and forgiveness of sins accomplished in the union of humanity and deity in Christ.

References to the Divine Nature as Son

1. Col 1:15-17 He (the Son – v13) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Here we have the divine nature clearly in view.

2. Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God (or Son – some manuscripts), who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

The divine nature is clearly in view here, and regardless of which reading is accepted, the Son is referred to because he “is at the Father’s side.”

3. Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Here we have the great act of infinite love demonstrated in the giving of His Son. Additionally, the fact the Father gave the Son, and (v17) that the Father sent the Son into the world, implies the Father-Son relationship pre-existing the Son coming.

4. Heb 1:8-10 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;

Here we have reference to the Son, and he is attributed with laying the foundations of creation.

5. Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

The Spirit referenced here is the Holy Spirit, who is referred to as the “Spirit of his Son.” It’s a safe assumption that this is the Spirit of his divine nature rather than the Spirit of his human nature.

6. Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

We are baptized in the name of the Son, in the same manner as the Father and Holy Spirit, which must be a reference to his deity.

References to Son as distinguishing the Divine nature from the human

1. Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

Here his “own Son” emphases the divine nature, with his humanity indicated in the “likeness of sinful flesh.”

2. Rom 1:1-4 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Here we have Son of God distinguishing human nature (“descended from David according to the flesh”) from divine nature (“declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness”). Before concluding that Jesus was not the Son before the resurrection, remember that it is his Son (v3) who was declared the “Son of God in power”

Other language denoting Eternal Sonship

1. Heb 7:1-3 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

Melchizedek’s serving as a type of the Son of God is based on his being “without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.”

2. John 17:1-5 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Jesus speaks to His Father as Son with reference to the glory he had with the Father before the world existed.

3. 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life

If the referent is his Son Jesus Christ, then by calling him eternal life we have a clear reference to the divine nature.

Conclusion

I propose that what has been presented is sufficient evidence to refute the assertions of Adam Clarke, and to establish the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. Debates about generation, eternally begotten, procession, etc, and the details of such properly belong in the realm of theological discussion that is grounded on the established scriptural foundation of God, eternally existing in 3 persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

How sin entered the world…

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:44:00 +0000

Without a biblical understanding of sin, we have no basis from which to judge the external world, and the apparent brokenness and futility of life. We will have no real answers to the world’s dilemmas because we won’t have an adequate grasp of the true problem. Furthermore, without a correct view of sin, we’re bound to misunderstand who God is. C.S. Lewis points out that a belief in God without an understanding of sin would result in monism, where God is both good and evil, or dualism, where there are two opposing gods, one good and one evil (see The Problem of Pain). Perhaps most importantly, sin is the problem for which the gospel provides the solution. Without an adequate understanding of the problem, we cannot truly appreciate the solution. In other words, without doctrine of sin, there is no Christianity. The root of this Christian understanding is found in the first three chapters of Genesis. The way things were

We live in a culture with a predominantly naturalistic view of world. In the words of Carl Sagan: “The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be.” The idea is that the universe is on a trajectory that has essentially continued unchanged since its origins. You don’t have to be an atheist or an unbeliever to have this perspective influence your view of life. There are many Christians who hold very naturalistic views of certain aspects of life. If you’ve ever heard someone excuse a fault with, “God made me this way,” or “I’m only being human,” or “it’s perfectly natural,” then you’ve see a bit of this philosophy in action. Underlying this is the idea that “The way things are by nature is the way things ought to be.”

However, the Bible paints quite a different picture. The way things are by nature is not the way it was, nor the way it ought to be, and it is not the way it always will be. In many respects, this is the story of the Bible – what was, what happened, what is, and what God is doing to bring about what will be. Genesis 1-2 describes an original creation untainted by sin. God created humans in His own image, made to reflect Him to the world. He gave them dominion over all of creation, to act as His deputies in cultivating and subduing the earth. God’s assessment of His original creation is that it was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The world is as it should be; there is real peace, real shalom. The picture is of husband and wife in communion with God, in communion with each other, and in communion with God’s creation. They are secure in themselves, undefiled by sin and immorality, naked and unashamed.

God gives the couple one rule: Don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In Old Testament Theology, Bruce Waltke comments: “The command assumes that as God’s image bearers, humans should think, plan, speak, and act as their Creator intends. The command is also for their good. The prohibition protects them from assuming self-serving autonomy in sin and death and to live instead under the Creator’s loving and trustworthy rule and protection.” (259)

Something happens, and shalom is broken…

In Genesis 3, the crafty serpent enters the scene, and questions the trustworthiness of God’s word, and the goodness of His instruction. He begins by questioning Eve’s interpretation and attempts to create doubt (“Did God really say…?). His focus is on the forbidden thing rather than God’s true blessings (“…you must not eat from any tree in the garden?”). He tempts her to discount God’s word and the stern warning (“You will not surely die…”). The core of the temptation is the prospect that Eve could become as God, tempting her to leave her status as creature, gain independence from God, and define her own existence apart from God (“You shall be as God, knowing good and evil…”). (Waltke, 261-263)

At this point, all of Eve’s defenses are down and she begins to doubt God. She examines the fruit and see that it’s good for food (it doesn’t look harmful at all), it’s a delight to the eyes (how could something so beautiful be wrong or bad?), and it’s desirable to make one wise (I’m just seeking to grow and improve myself). She gives in and eats the fruit, giving some to Adam as well. Sin has entered the human race. Based on this account, Waltke offer this definition of sin: “Sin is the perversion at the core of our being that causes us to disobey. Sin is the desire, the imagination, ‘to be like God’- the refusal to be human, to be creature – that causes us to disobey. Correlatively, sin is an inward, spiritual breach of trust in God’s character and his word that results in active disobedience.” (Waltke, 263)

Something does happen to them, just as the serpent said, but it’s not what they were expecting. “Their eyes were opened” and they realize they’re naked and they’re ashamed of it. There is a breach in the communion they shared with other, attempting to cover themselves and hide their shame. There is also a breach in the communion they shared with God, as they themselves from Him. When God confronts them about their disobedience they both pass the buck and refuse responsibility. Adam blames Eve, and ultimately blames God Himself for making her, and Eve blames the serpent. This simple narrative provides us with a profound description of human sin and our behavior, from the stages of temptation, to the guilt and desire to hide, and our tendency to pass the blame for our actions on to someone else.

God’s judgment

Something has already gone horribly wrong. The fellowship between God and humanity has been broken. The covenant in Paradise has been broken, and the blessings forfeited. God pronounces judgment as he had promised.

First, God pronounces a curse on the serpent: God speaks not only to the animal, but to the true tempter behind the animal (Revelation 12:9 tells us that the serpent was Satan himself). In the curse against the serpent, there is a glimmer of hope – Adam and Eve have made their allegiance with rebellion, disobeyed God, and then passed the blame rather than repenting. However, God promises that He will put hostility between the woman and the serpent, and between their respective seeds, with the anticipation of the serpent’s defeat. This promise of the seed provides the seed for the story of redemption which is the overarching theme of the Bible’s narrative.
Next, God addresses the woman: she will face pain in childbearing and conflict with her husband. Eve will have an inordinate desire to control her husband, and he will “rule” over here (as opposed to leading, guarding, and caring for her). This conflict destroys the bond of peace and fulfillment that was once present.
Finally, God addresses the man: The ground is cursed, and work will be difficult. The whole creation suffers because of this sin and the world as it was becomes the world as it now is (cf. Romans 8:20-22). The futility of life, describes so poignantly in Ecclesiastes 1-3, is a direct result of humanity’s fall into sin. In Reason for God, Tim Keller writes, “We are told that as soon as we determined to serve ourselves instead of God - as soon as we abandoned living for and enjoying God as our highest good – the entire created world became broken…Disease, genetic disorders, famine, natural disasters, againg, and death itself are as much the result of sin as are oppression, war, crime, and violence. We have lost God’s shalom – physically, spiritually, socially, psychologically, and culturally.” (170)

God’s final act of judgment in the account of the fall is also an act of mercy. Adam and Eve are banished from the garden, so that they might not eat from the tree of life and live forever. God cleanses the garden of sin, and at the same time prevents Adam and Eve, in their fallen, corrupted, and sinful state to eat from the tree and remain forever in that state. He has better things in store for them beyond death.

Bruce Waltke provides some additional theological reflection on this text:

“God plants an idyllic garden as the setting for humanity on probation. The failure of Adam and Eve in this paradise has profound theological significance. Since Adam is the only human being who could have resisted the Serpent’s temptation, his failure implies that humanity that is not spiritually empowered by God does not match the Serpent’s power and so keep covenant with God. In contrast to much sociological thinking that holds that the way to improve humans is to better their environment, this text shows that humanity at its best, when tested, rebels even in the perfect environment. “This theological understanding is found at the outset of Genesis. Each of the subsequent covenants – Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic – must be read with this presupposition: unassisted human faithfulness is an impossibility; any aspect of the covenant that is contingent upon human will alone is doomed for failure. The argument is simple: If Adam falls in the perfect setting of garden paradise without inherited guilt and a depraved nature, how can stiff-hearted Israel keep the Lord’s teachings in Canaan, a land known for its debauchery (cf. Deut 31:26; 32:1-43; Josh 24:19,17). And how can Judean kings in their own spiritual strength satisfy the conditional aspects of the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:14)? Indeed, the failure of these later covenants is preordained by the failure of Adam and Eve in the garden. This failure, right at the start, implicitly anticipates a different sort of covenant relationship, one that does not depend on human faithfulness, but entirely on the grace of God through the second Adam.” (256)

Redemption In Christ

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:35:00 +0000

Outline:

View PDF

Handout:

View PDF

Romans 7:14-25 (Who am "I")

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:35:00 +0000

Romans 7
The Context of Romans 7
The Emphatic “I” in Romans 7
Are you “under law”?
Not I but Sin Dwelling in Me
Debate Rebuttal
Summary of Arguments for and against

Romans 7

In Romans 6:14, Paul declares: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” He then proceeds in vv15-23 to answer the objection: “Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace?”

In 7:1, Paul picks up his argument from 6:14 and proceeds to expound upon his statement “you are not under law.” You could imagine it as an answer to the implied objection: “How is it that we are not under the law?”

He reasons:

Those who know the law, recognize that the law is binding only as long as a person lives
1. For example, a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives
2. If he dies, she is free from obligation and may remarry
3. Marriage -> Death -> Remarriage = OK
The same principle of death severing the bonds of the law applies to us as well
1. We have died with Christ (cf. Romans 6:3-11)
2. We are set free from the law
3. We are “remarried” to the resurrected Christ
This has taken place with the purpose that we may bear fruit for God

Consider the parallels in vv4d-6d:

5a For while we were living in the flesh,

6a But now we are released from the law

5b our sinful passions, aroused by the law,

6b having died to that which held us captive

5c were at work in our members

6c so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit

6d to bear fruit for death.

4d in order that we may bear fruit for God

Even more striking parallels are at work here as well. In chapter 6, Paul went to great lengths to explain how we are dead to sin and set free from its captivity, so that we may live to God, with fruit leading to sanctification and eternal life. Now it chapter 7, he discussing how we are set free from the law, that we may bear fruit for God. There is an extremely close relationship between the law and sin in these two chapters.

This raises the inevitable objection: “What then shall we say? That the law is sin?” In other words: “Wait a minute! Aren’t you equating the law with sin?”

He answers:

No, but the law aroused the sin within me to bring death to me
1. I had no knowledge of sin, until the law gave me commandment
2. i.e. “Thou shalt not covet” – sin seized the opportunity to produce covetousness in me
The law is holy, righteous, and good, but sin used the law to deceive me and kill me.
1. The law itself didn’t kill me, but sin, taking advantage of the law
So we can see the purpose of the law (cf. 5:20), which came to expose the sin in me for what it is, and that through the commandment it might become sinful beyond measure.

This is the context leading to v14, which is a characterization, in personal terms, of the events described in vv7-13. It is showing the effect of the law in conflict with sinful flesh. The effect is turmoil which shows sin to be sin. Although strong arguments have been made for these verses to be a description of the Christian experience, the strongest contextual argument is that this is an unregenerate person.

In his commentary on Romans, Douglas Moo sums up this description as Paul “looking back, from his Christian understanding, to the situation of himself, and other Jews like him, living under the Law of Moses. Of course, Paul is not giving us a full picture of that situation; he is concentrating on the negatives because this is what he must do to prove how useless the law was to deliver the Jews from their bondage to sin. We might say, then, that Romans 7:14-25 describes from a personal viewpoint the stage in salvation history that Paul delineates objectively in Galatians 3:19-4:3…He uses ego to represent himself, but himself in solidarity with the Jewish people.”

The parallel with Galatians 3:10-4:3 is quite helpful:

“Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world.“

There are numerous arguments on both sides, but I concur with Moo that the 3 below should be decisive in favor of a non-Christian:

“Sold under sin” in 14 vs. “set free from sin” in 6:18 and 6:22
“Captive to the law of sin” in 23 vs. “set free from the law of sin and death” in 8:2.
Paul declares that the “set free” in 6 and 8 are true for every Christian and that if they’re not true then one is not a Christian. Since they’re not true for the man in 14-25, it is not describing a Christian.

The transition to 8:1 moves from discussion of the death in law into discussion of life in the Spirit. Given that we are released from the guilt of sin (Ch. 5) and from the power of sin aroused by the law (Ch. 6-7), there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

The Context of Romans 7

The purpose for Romans 7 is found in the preceding chapters

In Romans 7, Paul discusses the law and its relationship to sin. However, this chapter cannot stand on its own as an isolated literary unit. The reason is because Romans 7 is grammatically bound to what comes before it.

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? Rom 7:1 KJV

This is Paul’s introduction to the chapter and to the discussion of the law. On the surface, the KJV reading could possibly allow for this unit to stand on its own. However, it is actually much more closely tied than it might appear:

KJV uses “Know ye not…?” to translate the words “e agnoeite”
Those two words literally mean, “Or are you ignorant…?”

The word e, meaning “or” forms an unbreakable grammatical link to what precedes, and shows that he is now elaborating on something he previously said. The other occurrence of this phrase is in Romans 6:3, where it finds an identical purpose. In 6:2, Paul makes a statement that “we died to sin” as the reason that we should not live in sin. He then goes on to explain that statement in 6:3ff, beginning with “Or are you ignorant…?”

Due to the grammatical link, a reading of Romans 7 should begin by asking the question – “What point is he now elaborating on and explaining?” Since the subject matter is the law, the logical conclusion would be that the point will be found in the most recent statement concerning the law, which is in 6:14 – “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” This statement forms the backdrop for what follows in Romans 7, and provides a control for proper interpretation. An analysis of Romans 7 will show that he is not only elaborating on the statement “you are not under law,” but on the whole statement including “sin shall not have dominion over you.” However, that is for a later discussion…

Romans 7:14-25 is inseparably tied to the rest of Romans 7

The 11 verses in 7:14-25 do not (and cannot) stand in isolation from the rest of Romans 7, because they are inseparably linked to what precedes them. If we agree that, generally, “every word weighs a ton,” then the first word of Romans 7:14 is a 10-ton truck when it comes to interpreting this segment. Here we go…

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. Rom 7:14 KJV

The little word “For” (Greek gar), though seemingly incidental and simply a transition phrase, is in fact, the chain on which hangs the logic of Pauline thought throughout the entire New Testament. This word occurs 379 times in the Pauline epistles, and I argue that every single time he begins a clause with gar it has one of the following senses:

What follows is the reason or grounds for what was previously said
What follows is the proof or evidence for what was previously said
What follows is an illustration or example of what was previously said

Regardless, of which sense is used, the word always ties the following statement to the context of what preceded. In the case of 7:14, the immediate relationship is with 7:13:

Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. Rom 7:13 KJV

Likewise, verse 13 is an objection/response to what was previously said in vv7-12:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Rom 7:7-12 KJV

Following the chain up, vv7-12 is an objection/response to what was previously said in vv5-6:

For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Rom 7:5-6 KJV

Finally, we see that v.5 is linked with what comes before by gar, thereby tying it to 7:1-4, which (as was demonstrated above) is grammatically bound to the context of Romans 6:14. The result is Chapter 7 being an explanation of something said in 6:14, with the logic building from v4 to vv5-6 to vv7-12 to v13 to vv14-25. Following our logic cues, verses 7-25 are a single unit, serving as an objection/response to the message put forth in Romans 7:5-6.

The broader context of 7:14-25 is not Romans 7 or even Romans 6-8

If we are seeking for a single, literary unit, within which to view Romans 7:14-25, it is not Romans 7, nor even Romans 6-8. Instead, I would argue that the proper context is Romans 5:1-8:39. I believe that the structure and flow of these three chapters is thoughtful and intentional rather than haphazard, and that it is actually a masterfully arranged and carefully reasoned unit of writing. Furthermore, I would argue that Romans 8 is not the continuation or conclusion of Romans 7, but is more likely the summation of the whole of 6-7, and the continuation from Romans 5:18-21. Below are the reasons:

Romans 5:1-8:39 as a single unit

Working backwards from Romans 8:39, we see that Romans 5:1-11 is the first segment that begins a new line of reasoning, without being an explanation or defense of what was previously said. He is able to do this by succinctly summing up the last line of argument with “since we have been justified by faith.”
Romans 5:1-11 appears to form an inclusio with Romans 8:14-39 (an inclusio is a literary device based on a concentric principle, also known as bracketing or an envelope structure, which consists of creating a frame by placing similar material at the beginning and end of a section. It is commonly used throughout the Bible).

A comparison of the two segments reveals strikingly common themes, such as:
- Assurance of hope based on Christ’s finished work
- The work of the Holy Spirit
- Rejoicing in suffering and tribulation
- Love of God/Christ
Additionally, many common words are used between the two, such as:
- justify (dikaioō)
- hope (elpis)
- glory (doxa)
- suffering (thlipsis)

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-- but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Rom 5:1-11 ESV

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 8:14-39 ESV

Romans 8 as a continuation of the discussion from 5:16-21 and a summation of Ch.6-7

Chapter 8 begins by announcing that “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…” This statement, particularly the therefore, indicates two things. One, it indicates that what Paul has previously argued has been evidence for making this statement. Two, it indicates that this is a conclusion regarding a discussion of condemnation vs no condemnation. The word for condemnation (katakrima) only occurs 3 times in Romans. Once here, and the other times are in 5:16,18
The themes in 8:1-13, summarize much of what has been discussed through Ch. 6 and 7.
- Freedom from the law of sin and death
- God doing what the flesh could not do
- Living according to the Spirit
Chapters 6 and 7 are structured around objections and responses, while Chapter 8 returns to the more expository structure of Chapter 5

Several commentators have noted a chiastic structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiastic_structure ) in Romans 5-8. Here are a couple of the proposed forms:

A. 5:1-11 – Assurance of future glory

B. 5:12-21 – Basis for this assurance in the work of Christ

C. 6:1-23 – The problem of sin

C’.7:1-25 – The problem of the law

B’.8:1-17 – Ground of assurance in the work of Christ, mediated by the Spirit

A’.8:18-39 – Assurance of future glory

A. 5:1-11: Assurance of hope in midst of tribulation

B. 5:12-21: Adam and Christ: Adam’s sin reversed

C. 6:1-14: Deliverance from dominance of sin

D. 6:15-23: Present members as weapons of righteousness

E. 7:1-6: Death to the law through death of Christ

D’. 7:7-25: Bondage to sin provoked by law; law warring in members

C’. 8:1-17: God delivered where Law could not

B’. 8:18-25: Creation liberated from futility to which it was subjected after Adam

A’. 8:26-39: Assurance of hope in the midst of tribulation

The Emphatic “I” in Romans 7

The nature of English language is such that there is very little inflection of words to indicate function. With regard to verbs, the personal pronouns (i.e. I, you, he/she/it, we, you, they) are what give verbs their person and number, rather than anything in the form of the verb itself. Those familiar with more inflected languages, such as Spanish, will recognize that the verb forms change to indicate person and number. For instance, to say “I live” in Spanish would be “vivo” but to say “you live” (informally) would be “vives” for the singular or “vivéis” for the plural. Spanish also has personal pronouns for “I” and “you” but they are often omitted because the form of the verb makes the person and number clear.

Greek, much like Spanish, is a highly inflected language, such that the 1^st person singular form of a verb does not need the pronoun, because the inflected form provides all the information needed. What this means is that when used with a verb, the 1^st person pronoun becomes an intensifier or a means of emphasis.

Such emphatic use is readily apparent in Romans 7:7-25. Consider the following:

Paul speaks using the first person 112 times in Romans. The 1^st person pronoun occurs only 18 times throughout the letter, and 7 of those are in 7:7-25. Never in the New Testament does he use the pronoun so frequently within such a small space.

The 1^st person singular (“I”) verb is non-existent from 5:1 to 8:17, except for the emphatic usage of 7:7-25 – where it is used 25 times (outside of the incidental usage in 6:19 – “I speak humanly” and 7:1 – “I speak to those who know the law”). Contrarily, the 1^st person plural (“We”) verb is used 35 times from 5:1 to 8:17, with only 2 occurrences in 7:7-25 (“What shall we say” and “We know that the law is spiritual”).

In his translation of Romans, JN Darby recognized the emphasis and demonstrated it in his English rendering by bracketing the emphatic pronouns with “*”:

What shall we say then? is the law sin? Far be the thought. But I had not known sin, unless by law: for I had not had conscience also of lust unless the law had said, Thou shalt not lust; but sin, getting a point of attack by the commandment, wrought in me every lust; for without law sin was dead. But *I* was alive without law once; but the commandment having come, sin revived, but *I* died. And the commandment, which was for life, was found, as to me, itself to be unto death: for sin, getting a point of attack by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me . So that the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Did then that which is good become death to me? Far be the thought. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death to me by that which is good; in order that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

For we know that the law is spiritual: but *I* am fleshly, sold under sin. For that which I do, I do not own: for not what I will, this I do; but what I hate, this I practise. But if what I do not will, this I practise, I consent to the law that it is right. Now then it is no longer *I* that do it, but the sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, good does not dwell: for to will is there with me, but to do right I find not. For I do not practise the good that I will; but the evil I do not will, that I do. But if what *I* do not will, this I practise, it is no longer *I* that do it, but the sin that dwells in me. I find then the law upon *me* who will to practise what is right, that with *me* evil is there. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring in opposition to the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which exists in my members. O wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me out of this body of death? I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then *I* *myself* with the mind serve God’s law; but with the flesh sin’s law. Rom 7:7-25 Darby

Regardless of who the man in Romans 7:14-25 turns out to be, it is clear that Paul’s use of the 1^st person singular in this section is not just plain, ordinary usage, but is demonstrably emphatic and intensive.

For a comprehensive analysis of the use of the 1^st person singular in Paul’s letters, see the verse breakdown below. You will see that the emphatic is used sparingly in relation to the rest of the 1^st person singular uses, which makes Romans 7:7-25 stand out all the more:

Romans

GNT - ego^

Rom_7:9; Rom_7:10; Rom_7:14; Rom_7:17; Rom_7:20; Rom_7:24; Rom_7:25;

Rom_9:3; Rom_10:19; Rom_11:1; Rom_11:13; Rom_11:19; Rom_12:19; Rom_15:14; Rom_16:4; Rom_16:22;

ESV - I (no ego^)

Rom_1:8; Rom_1:9; Rom_1:10; Rom_1:11; Rom_1:13; Rom_1:14; Rom_1:15; Rom_1:16; Rom_3:5; Rom_3:7; Rom_4:17; Rom_6:19; Rom_7:1; Rom_7:7; Rom_7:15; Rom_7:16; Rom_7:18; Rom_7:19; Rom_7:21; Rom_7:22; Rom_7:23; Rom_8:18; Rom_8:38; Rom_9:1; Rom_9:2; Rom_9:9; Rom_9:13; Rom_9:15; Rom_9:17; Rom_9:25; Rom_9:33; Rom_10:2; Rom_10:18; Rom_10:20; Rom_10:21; Rom_11:3; Rom_11:4; Rom_11:11; Rom_11:25; Rom_11:27; Rom_12:1; Rom_12:3; Rom_14:11; Rom_14:14; Rom_15:8; Rom_15:9; Rom_15:15; Rom_15:17; Rom_15:18; Rom_15:19; Rom_15:20; Rom_15:22; Rom_15:23; Rom_15:24; Rom_15:25; Rom_15:28; Rom_15:29; Rom_15:30; Rom_15:31; Rom_15:32; Rom_16:1; Rom_16:17; Rom_16:19; Rom_16:24;

1 Corinthians

GNT - ego^

1Co_1:12; 1Co_3:4; 1Co_3:6; 1Co_4:15; 1Co_5:3; 1Co_6:12; 1Co_7:10; 1Co_7:28; 1Co_9:6; 1Co_9:15; 1Co_9:26; 1Co_10:30; 1Co_11:23; 1Co_15:10; 1Co_15:11;

ESV - I (no ego^)

1Co_1:4; 1Co_1:10; 1Co_1:14; 1Co_1:16; 1Co_1:19; 1Co_2:1; 1Co_2:2; 1Co_2:3; 1Co_3:1; 1Co_3:2; 1Co_3:10; 1Co_4:3; 1Co_4:4; 1Co_4:6; 1Co_4:9; 1Co_4:14; 1Co_4:16; 1Co_4:17; 1Co_4:18; 1Co_4:19; 1Co_4:21; 1Co_5:9; 1Co_5:11; 1Co_5:12; 1Co_6:5; 1Co_6:15; 1Co_7:6; 1Co_7:7; 1Co_7:8; 1Co_7:12; 1Co_7:25; 1Co_7:26; 1Co_7:29; 1Co_7:32; 1Co_7:35; 1Co_7:40; 1Co_8:13; 1Co_9:1; 1Co_9:2; 1Co_9:8; 1Co_9:16; 1Co_9:17; 1Co_9:18; 1Co_9:19; 1Co_9:20; 1Co_9:21; 1Co_9:22; 1Co_9:23; 1Co_9:27; 1Co_10:1; 1Co_10:15; 1Co_10:19; 1Co_10:20; 1Co_10:29; 1Co_10:33; 1Co_11:1; 1Co_11:2; 1Co_11:3; 1Co_11:17; 1Co_11:18; 1Co_11:22; 1Co_11:34; 1Co_12:1; 1Co_12:3; 1Co_12:15; 1Co_12:16; 1Co_12:21; 1Co_12:31; 1Co_13:1; 1Co_13:2; 1Co_13:3; 1Co_13:11; 1Co_13:12; 1Co_14:5; 1Co_14:6; 1Co_14:11; 1Co_14:14; 1Co_14:15; 1Co_14:18; 1Co_14:19; 1Co_14:21; 1Co_14:37; 1Co_15:1; 1Co_15:2; 1Co_15:3; 1Co_15:9; 1Co_15:31; 1Co_15:32; 1Co_15:34; 1Co_15:50; 1Co_15:51; 1Co_16:1; 1Co_16:2; 1Co_16:3; 1Co_16:4; 1Co_16:5; 1Co_16:6; 1Co_16:7; 1Co_16:8; 1Co_16:10; 1Co_16:11; 1Co_16:12; 1Co_16:15; 1Co_16:17; 1Co_16:21;

2 Corinthians

GNT - ego^

2Co_2:2; 2Co_2:10; 2Co_10:1; 2Co_11:29; 2Co_12:11; 2Co_12:13; 2Co_12:15; 2Co_12:16;

ESV - I (no ego^)

2Co_1:13; 2Co_1:15; 2Co_1:16; 2Co_1:17; 2Co_1:19; 2Co_1:23; 2Co_2:1; 2Co_2:3; 2Co_2:4; 2Co_2:8; 2Co_2:9; 2Co_2:12; 2Co_2:13; 2Co_4:13; 2Co_5:11; 2Co_6:2; 2Co_6:13; 2Co_6:16; 2Co_6:17; 2Co_6:18; 2Co_7:3; 2Co_7:4; 2Co_7:7; 2Co_7:8; 2Co_7:9; 2Co_7:12; 2Co_7:14; 2Co_7:16; 2Co_8:3; 2Co_8:8; 2Co_8:10; 2Co_8:13; 2Co_8:16; 2Co_9:2; 2Co_9:3; 2Co_9:5; 2Co_10:2; 2Co_10:8; 2Co_10:9; 2Co_11:1; 2Co_11:2; 2Co_11:3; 2Co_11:5; 2Co_11:6; 2Co_11:7; 2Co_11:8; 2Co_11:9; 2Co_11:11; 2Co_11:12; 2Co_11:16; 2Co_11:17; 2Co_11:18; 2Co_11:21; 2Co_11:22; 2Co_11:23; 2Co_11:24; 2Co_11:25; 2Co_11:30; 2Co_11:31; 2Co_11:33; 2Co_12:1; 2Co_12:2; 2Co_12:3; 2Co_12:5; 2Co_12:6; 2Co_12:8; 2Co_12:9; 2Co_12:10; 2Co_12:14; 2Co_12:17; 2Co_12:18; 2Co_12:20; 2Co_12:21; 2Co_13:1; 2Co_13:2; 2Co_13:6; 2Co_13:10;

Galatians

GNT - ego^

Gal_1:12; Gal_2:19; Gal_5:2; Gal_5:10; Gal_5:11; Gal_6:17;

ESV - I (no ego^)

Gal_1:6; Gal_1:9; Gal_1:10; Gal_1:11; Gal_1:13; Gal_1:14; Gal_1:15; Gal_1:16; Gal_1:17; Gal_1:18; Gal_1:19; Gal_1:20; Gal_1:21; Gal_1:22; Gal_2:1; Gal_2:2; Gal_2:6; Gal_2:7; Gal_2:10; Gal_2:11; Gal_2:14; Gal_2:18; Gal_2:20; Gal_2:21; Gal_3:17; Gal_4:1; Gal_4:11; Gal_4:12; Gal_4:13; Gal_4:15; Gal_4:16; Gal_4:18; Gal_4:19; Gal_4:20; Gal_5:3; Gal_5:12; Gal_5:16; Gal_5:21; Gal_6:11; Gal_6:14;

Ephesians

GNT - ego^

Eph_3:1; Eph_4:1; Eph_5:32;

ESV - I (no ego^)

Eph_1:15; Eph_1:16; Eph_3:3; Eph_3:7; Eph_3:8; Eph_3:13; Eph_3:14; Eph_4:17; Eph_6:20; Eph_6:21; Eph_6:22;

Phillipians

GNT - ego^

Php_3:4; Php_3:13; Php_4:11;

ESV - I (no ego^)

Php_1:3; Php_1:6; Php_1:7; Php_1:8; Php_1:12; Php_1:16; Php_1:18; Php_1:19; Php_1:20; Php_1:22; Php_1:23; Php_1:25; Php_1:27; Php_1:30; Php_2:16; Php_2:17; Php_2:19; Php_2:20; Php_2:23; Php_2:24; Php_2:25; Php_2:27; Php_2:28; Php_3:7; Php_3:8; Php_3:10; Php_3:11; Php_3:12; Php_3:14; Php_3:18; Php_4:1; Php_4:2; Php_4:3; Php_4:4; Php_4:10; Php_4:12; Php_4:13; Php_4:15; Php_4:17; Php_4:18;

Colossions

GNT - ego^

Col_1:23; Col_1:25;

ESV - I (no ego^)

Col_1:24; Col_1:29; Col_2:1; Col_2:4; Col_2:5; Col_4:3; Col_4:4; Col_4:8; Col_4:13; Col_4:18;

1Th

GNT - ego^

1Th_2:18;

ESV - I (no ego^)

1Th_3:5; 1Th_5:27;

2Th

No ego^

2Th_2:5; 2Th_3:17;

1Timothy

GNT - ego^

1Ti_2:7;

ESV - I (no ego^)

1Ti_1:3; 1Ti_1:11; 1Ti_1:12; 1Ti_1:13; 1Ti_1:15; 1Ti_1:16; 1Ti_1:18; 1Ti_1:20; 1Ti_2:1; 1Ti_2:8; 1Ti_2:12; 1Ti_3:14; 1Ti_3:15; 1Ti_4:13; 1Ti_5:14; 1Ti_5:21; 1Ti_6:13;

2Timothy

GNT - ego^

2Ti_1:11; 2Ti_4:1; 2Ti_4:6;

ESV - I (no ego^)

2Ti_1:3; 2Ti_1:4; 2Ti_1:5; 2Ti_1:6; 2Ti_1:12; 2Ti_2:7; 2Ti_2:9; 2Ti_2:10; 2Ti_3:11; 2Ti_4:7; 2Ti_4:12; 2Ti_4:13; 2Ti_4:17; 2Ti_4:20;

Titus

GNT - ego^

Tit_1:3;

ESV - I (no ego^)

Tit_1:5; Tit_3:8; Tit_3:12;

Philemon

GNT - ego^

Phm_1:13; Phm_1:19;

ESV - I (no ego^)

Phm_1:4; Phm_1:5; Phm_1:6; Phm_1:7; Phm_1:8; Phm_1:9; Phm_1:10; Phm_1:12; Phm_1:14; Phm_1:20; Phm_1:21; Phm_1:22;

Are you “under law”?

The argument that makes Romans 7:14-25 into the apostle Paul’s (and by extension, every Christian’s) description of his own present struggle with sin (which he undoubtedly had), must ignore what the description in 7:14-25 is actually saying.

Taking 7:25b as a summary statement of the preceding paragraph, here’s what we have:

Romans 7:25b “…So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”

Two things are in view here:

I serve the law of God with my mind
- “I agree with the law, that it is good” (v16)
- “I have the desire to do what is right” (v18)
- “I delight in the law of God” (v22)
I serve the law of sin with my flesh
- I am “sold under sin” (v14)
- “the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (v19)
- “I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind” (v23)
- “making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members” (v23)

The law of God spoken here is most naturally understood as the Mosaic Law:

“I am speaking to those who know the law” (v1)
“I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”” (v7)
“the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” (v12)

The law of sin spoken here is most naturally understood as the rule and authority of sin (dominion?) that is warring against the Mosaic Law and instead making me sin.

“…sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness.” (v8)
“…It was sin, producing death in me through what is good” (v13)
“…it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.” (vv17,20)
“…For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.” (v18)
“…For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.” (v19)
“…but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.”

The question is, given the understanding of law of God and law of sin above, is it Paul’s intention to say that he is presently serving the law of God with his mind, but serving the law of sin with his flesh (or, as in v23 “in my members”)?

Let’s compare the surrounding context and see if this is congruent with what Paul is teaching:

Rom 6:12-14 ESV Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

In this passage, Paul declares the following:

We should not let sin reign
We should not let sin make us obey its passions
We should not present our members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness
We should present our members to God as instruments for righteousness
Sin will have no dominion over us

The basis of our ability to do this is that we are not under law, but under grace. This aligns with the context of chapter 7, in which Paul demonstrates the dominion of sin over those who are under the law.

Rom 6:16-18 ESV Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

In this passage, Paul declares the following:

We are slaves to the one whom we obey, sin to death, or obedience to righteousness.
We were once slaves of sin
We have been set free from sin by the standard of teaching to which you were committed
We have become slaves of righteousness

This passage is full of declarations of what we are and what we’ve become. Paul follows this up in the next statement with an exhortation that can best be understood as a directive to “Be what you are!”

Rom 6:19-22 ESV I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.

In this passage, Paul exhorts:

As we once presented our members as slaves to impurity and lawlessness
So now we present our members as slaves to righteousness
When we were slaves of sin, we were free in regard to righteousness
We have been set free from sin, and have become slaves of God

The whole section of Chapter 6 is really a beautifully poetic declaration of what you are in Christ Jesus, and an exhortation for you to be what you are.

Rom 7:4-6 ESV Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

Continuing from the previous discussion, Paul declares:

We have died to the law, that we bear fruit for God
We were living in the flesh
Sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death
We are released from the law
We have died to that which held us captive

Here we have Paul discussing the work of sin in terms ever so similar to verses 8, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 23. So much so that we could argue that the “law of sin” is none other than:

“our sinful passions, aroused by the law [of God], were at work in our members [law of sin? – v23] to bear fruit for death.”

Rom 8:2-5 ESV For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

Here we see the following:

The “law” of the Spirit of life has set us free from the “law” of sin and death
The law was weakened by the flesh (as shown in Chapter 7)
The law could not condemn sin in the flesh, nor set us free from the law of sin
The righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us, who walk according to the Spirit

I would argue that the “law” of the Spirit of life is none other than the rule and authority of the Holy Spirit, which is in opposition to the “law of sin” mentioned here and in 7:25b.

Rom 8:8-9 ESV Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Here we see that:

Those who are in the flesh cannot please God
We are not in the flesh
This is true for all Christians, because all Christians have the Holy Spirit

What we have seen is Paul’s concept of “under law” and the serving of the “law of sin” in the text surrounding 7:25. So what about elsewhere in the New Testament? What is Paul’s conception of the law there? Are there parallels? (Please forgive the rabbinic piling on below for brevity…the bold functions as my commentary)

1Ti 1:8-11 ESV Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Gal 3:19-26 ESV Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Gal 4:1-7 ESV I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. 3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Gal 5:13-25 ESV For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. 16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

You be the judge whether Paul’s intention in Romans 7:25 is to tell us that he presently serves the law of God with his mind and serves the law of sin with his flesh.

Not I but Sin Dwelling in Me

Not “I” but sin dwelling in me

Rom 7:7-13 ESV What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means!** Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. **For** I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. **For** apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 **For** sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13 **Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means!** **It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

Paul, still in the past tense “I” in v13, declares that the agent of death was not the law, but sin using the law. Here in 7-13 he is clearly answering objections to his previous statements about the law, and is giving a defense of the goodness of the law, despite its relationship to sin and death. In 7-13, the law is good and sin is the real culprit. In these verses, we have sin beginning to take on a personality of its own. Sin “came alive” and, “seizing an opportunity,” began “producing death” through the law. What is left unexplained is how sin was able to have such a power over “me.” How is this possible?

Rom 7:14 ESV For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

As shown in Part 1, the transition gar (“for”) has one of the following senses:

What follows is the reason or grounds for what was previously said
What follows is the proof or evidence for what was previously said
What follows is an illustration or example of what was previously said

I would argue from the context that 1 and 3 are the likely uses in this verse, illustrating the reason that sin is able to wield such power.

Though the law is “spiritual” (as stated in v12 “holy and righteous and good”), I am “carnal” or “fleshly” and “sold under sin. “ What is the evidence that I am “sold under sin?”

Rom 7:15-16 ESV For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.

We see that I am sold under sin, by the fact that I don’t understand my own actions, in that I do what I hate. However, the fact that I hate it shows that the law itself is good.

Rom 7:17-20 ESV So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Now we get to the crux of the matter. If the law is good, and I agree with the law and delight in it, how is it that sin is able to work death in me? The answer is that sin dwells within (in my flesh). I break the commandment, not because I want to, but because I am in the flesh and sin rules my flesh. The culprit is not the law, which is good, nor me who agrees with the law, but sin seizing an opportunity by the law.

Rom 7:21-23 ESV So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

So this sin, ruling in my flesh, is its own law, and it is contrary to the law of God, which is good and in which I delight. This law in my flesh wages war against God’s law and makes me its slave.

Rom 7:24-25 ESV Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Note the plural “our” in the thanksgiving. I would argue that the thanksgiving of 25a is an interjection by Paul and hearkens back to this verse:

Rom 6:16-18 ESV Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

The concluding statement is a summary of the situation of the “I” of 7:7-25. I myself (that is, the whole me – in spite of all this divided talk, there is but one man caught in this conflict) serve the law of God with my mind – as I said, I consent to God’s law that it is good – but sin has its own law and makes me captive, forcing me to serve it with my flesh – as I said, I keep on doing the evil that I do not want to do, and cannot do the good that I want to do.

In summary, the ruling force in vv7-25 is sin, which has taken the “I” captive. Though the “I” has the law, it is powerless to end the captivity, but only serves arouse sin to begin working death. The man has the law of God, and delights in it. However, he is unable to obey it or use it to get free from the captivity of sin.

This man’s situation appears eerily similar to this man:

Rom 2:17-29 ESV But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth– 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” 25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Debate Rebuttal

Rom 7:7-14 ESV What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 **For** we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

Firstly, can you explain to me your understanding of the relationship between vv14-25 and the preceding? I insist that the only way your interpretation can stand is by denying the explicit subordinate relationship between these two sections. 7:7-25 is ALL (and only) about the law/sin dynamic. You must ignore that link, and then read the Christian struggle into those verses.

Secondly, can you explain to me how vv14-25 do not function as an illustration and explanation of vv5,7-13, and that they are not actually making the same point?

Now, to your points:

1. **“Sold under sin” does not mean “slave to sin” (also 7:23 does not indicate slavery)**

I agree that “sold under sin” doesn’t HAVE to mean a slave to sin, but let’s see what the evidence would have us understand it as.

First, the verb used here is the perfect passive form of piprasko (“I have been sold”). My Greek grammar describes the perfect tense as describing an action that was brought to completion and whose effects are felt in the present. As in, “I have been sold and am now presently under sin.” Below is every occurrence of that verb in the New Testament and the Septuagint that relates to a person being sold:

Gen_31:15 – Rachel and Leah sold by Laban to Jacob

Exo_22:3 - sold for his debt (debtor servant)

Deu_15:12 - Sold as a servant

Deu_21:14 - You shall not sell a wife for money, or treat her as a slave

Deu_28:68 - You shall offer yourselves for sale as slaves

1Sa_23:7 - Saul says God has sold David into his hands because he was shut up in a city

2Ki_17:17 - Sold themselves to work wickedness

Est_7:4 - sold for destruction, and pillage, and slavery

Psa_105:17 - Joseph sold for a slave

Isa_50:1 - sold to creditors

Isa_52:3 - sold into captivity

Jer_34:14 - sold as a servant

Mat_18:25 - sold as a debtor

When referring to people, the word definitely carries with it the connotation of being sold into some form of bondage, often as a debtor.

Second, does the context provide any evidence that slavery or servitude or bondage is in view here?

Rom 6:6 ESV We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

Rom 6:16 ESV Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Rom 6:17 ESV But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,

Rom 6:19-20 ESV I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

Rom 6:23 ESV For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 7:6 ESV But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

Rom 7:23 ESV but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

Rom 7:25 ESV Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Rom 8:12 ESV So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.

It seems clear from the context that Paul uses the slavery metaphor consistently throughout that section.

Third, v23 and v25 do, in fact, indicate that the “I” is a servant of sin in his members. The phrase “law of sin” is built from verse 23:

Rom 7:22-23 ESV For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

The “law of my mind” is The Law, which we have been speaking of since verse 1. That is, the Law of God. The “law of sin” is “another law” that is in my members and is the power and rule of sin, as demonstrated in verses 15-21. The context shows that this “law” rules the members and makes the “I” do what he does not want. So, in verse 25, the concession that “with my flesh I serve the law of sin” is nothing less than an admission of servitude to sin. The verb is douleuo, which is the verbal form of doulos, which means “servant or slave.”

2. That v15 refers to the “besetting sins” that Christians face

Rom 7:15 ESV For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.

While it is possible to take this verse on its own and relate it to our experiences, however, the link “for” and the context requires us to see this and what follows as an explanation of being “sold under sin.”

Interestingly (though unrelated), there are parallels here with other Greek literature that Paul was likely familiar with (see Greek poets quoted in Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12; 1 Cor 15:33). For example:

Ovid Metamorphoses 7.21: “I see, and I desire the better: I follow the worse.”

Epictetus Discourses 1.3: “but since these two things are mingled in the generation of man, body in common with the animals, and reason and intelligence in common with the gods, many incline to this kinship, which is miserable and mortal; and some few to that which is divine and happy. Since then it is of necessity that every man uses everything according to the opinion which he has about it, those, the few, who think that they are formed for fidelity and modesty and a sure use of appearances have no mean or ignoble thoughts about themselves; but with the many it is quite the contrary. For they say, “What am I? A poor, miserable man, with my wretched bit of flesh.” Wretched. Indeed; but you possess something better than your “bit of flesh.” Why then do you neglect that which is better, and why do you attach yourself to this?”

3. That “I consent unto the law that it is good” and “I delight in the law of God” cannot refer to an unconverted man.

First, I argue that the man in 7:14-25 is Paul as representative of Israel under the Mosaic Law (obviously analyzing from his Christian perspective). It is everyone under The Law. Evidence that this can be referring to them (and not be regenerate):

Witness 1:

Rom 2:17-29 ESV But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth– 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” 25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Witness 2:

Rom 10:1-4 ESV Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Witness 3:

Act 21:20-21 ESV And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.

Witness 4:

Act 22:2-23 ESV And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they became even more quiet. And he said: 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as all of you are this day.”

Witness 5:

Rom 7:7-12 ESV What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

4. That v17 serves to “excuse the man” from liability for his sin

Is that where you’ve landed in regards to this? That I am no longer responsible, but the sin within me? On the contrary, more consistent with everything else Paul has EVER said, it is more likely understood as the explanation for why a man who has the law, and agrees that he should obey it, fails to obey. The answer is the power of sin within him. That is, he cannot resist sin’s power. He is talking about sin as if it has a personality of its own to demonstrate why the law cannot break bondage to sin (all the way through vv7-25). This is the attempt of a man under the law, seeking to establish his own righteousness by obedience to the law, finding that he is utterly incapable of overcoming sin’s power. He does not submit to God’s law, indeed cannot.

Summary of Arguments for and against

Arguments for an unregenerate:

1. The strong connection of the “I” with “the flesh” (vv14, 18, and 25) suggests that Paul is elaborating on the unregenerate condition mentioned in 7:5 as being “in the flesh.”

2. The “I” throughout this passage struggles on his/her own (“I myself”), without the aid of the Holy Spirit

3. The “I” is “under the power of sin” (v14b), a state from which every believer is released (6:2, 6, 11, 18-22).

4. As the unsuccessful struggle of vv15-20 shows, the “I” is a “prisoner of the law of sin” (v23). Yet Romans 8:2 proclaims that believers have been set free from this same “law of sin and death.”

5. While Paul makes clear that believers will continue to struggle with sin (6:12-13; 13:12-14; Gal 5:17), what is depicted in 7:14-25 is not just a struggle with sin but defeat by sin. This is a more negative view of the Christian life than can be accommodated within Paul’s theology.

6. The “I” in these verses struggles with the need to obey the Mosaic law; yet Paul has already proclaimed the release of the believer from the dictates of the law (6:14; 7:4-6)

7. The connection between 7-12 and 13-25, both grammatically and thematically, points to 14-25 being an illustration/explanation of 7-13.

Arguments for a regenerate:

1. The “I” must refer to Paul himself, and the shift from past tenses of v7-13 to the present tenses of v14-25 can be explained only if Paul is describing in these latter verses his present experience as a Christian.

2. Only the regenerate truly “delight in God’s law” (v22), seek to obey it (v15-20), and serve it (v25); the unregenerate do not “seek after God” (3:11) and cannot submit to the law of God (8:7).

3. Whereas the “mind” of people outside of Christ is universally presented by Paul as opposed to God and his will (Rom 1:28; Eph 4:17; Col 2:18; 1 Tim 6:5; 2 Tim 3:8; Tit 2:15), the “mind” of the “I” in this text is a positive medium, by which the “I” “serves the law of God” (v22,v25).

4. The “I” must be a Christian because only a Christian possesses the “inner person;” Paul’s only other uses of the phrase are in 2 Cor 4:16 and Eph 3:16.

5. The passage concludes after Paul’s mention of the deliverance wrought by God in Christ, with a reiteration of the divided state of the “I” (vv24-25). This shows that the division and struggle of the “I” that Paul depicts in these verses is that of the person already saved by God in Christ.

Summarized from Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans. Eerdmans.

Genesis 3 - Sin and Evil

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:35:00 +0000

Outline:

View PDF

Handout:

View PDF

Applying the Bible – Part 2: How to apply the Bible

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:16:00 +0000

There are many factors involved in applying the message of the Bible to your own life and community. It’s not possible to treat all of the nuances of application in such a short space, but a broad outline and a few examples should create a framework which will allow you to pursue your own study and begin applying the Bible to your life. With time, you’ll begin to see that the richness of biblical application extends well beyond what is presented below. Applying a Bible passage in 3 steps

1. Determine what the passage means in its context – As stated in Part 1, this is crucial for proper application. Study the passage, consult any necessary resources, and seek to understand what the passage meant to its original audience and how it applied to them. Attempt to place yourself within the historical and cultural situation. How would I have received this message? What would I have thought or done? If I were conversing with the author, what would I have asked, or how would I have answered? This understanding serves as a necessary control on interpretation to keep us from reading our own ideas into a text, and to keep us from applying a passage in ways that are not consistent with the inspired author’s message.

2. Extract the continuing truth from the passage – What is the theological truth or underlying principle that drives the original application? What does this passage tell us about God? What does it tell us about humans? These truths may be right on the surface of the text, or they may be a little deeper, underneath a culturally specific command or a narrative account.

3. Apply that truth to contemporary reality – Your application may be general or specific or both. Look for situations today that parallel those of the original audience. Does this truth have any relevance to my life? Is there anything in my life and thought that is contrary to this truth? What changes would bring my life into conformity with this truth? Start a discussion with friends and family. They might see a relevant application that you haven’t thought. Prayer and humility are especially important in this area, as we are vulnerable to being found in error or sin, as well as being required to do something uncomfortable. Our natural inclination will be to subconsciously (or consciously) refuse to acknowledge those things. Ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten and convict you to see and obey what you’ve learned.

Example 1: Old Testament Law

If you build a new house, you must construct a guard rail around your roof to avoid being culpable in the event someone should fall from it. Deut 22:8 (NET)

Original Meaning – During this period, the roof was flat and regularly used as a living space, whether for socializing or as sleeping quarters (see 1 Sam 9:25; 2 Sam 11:2). The requirement for a guard rail (or “parapet”) served to protect people on the roof from falling and being injured or killed.

Continuing Truth – Clearly, the intent of this law is to be concerned for your neighbor’s well-being. This can be considered an extension of the command to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (see Mk. 12:31; Gal 5:14). This command serves to curb our natural inclination to dismiss our part in another person’s well-being under the guise that they need to take responsibility for themselves (“am I my brother’s keeper?”). Specifically, this speaks of taking care to create a safe environment under your domain of responsibility to prevent an accident, even if it is a result of negligence on the part of the other person (such as falling off the side of a house).

Contemporary Application – While most homes don’t use the roof as a living space, any potentially unsafe condition in a home could be considered a parallel situation (stairs without banisters, exposed wiring, dead batteries in a smoke alarm, etc) and care should be taken to avoid them.

Example 2: Teaching of Jesus

He also said to them, “You neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you would have received from me is corban’ (that is, a gift for God), then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.” Mark 7:2 (NET)

Note: This passage provides an example of one of the additional factors involved in biblical application. When asking how the message would be received by the original audience it is possible to consider the passage above from the perspective of two audiences. The first would be the Pharisees as the original recipients of Jesus’ words, and the second would be the early Christians as the original recipients of the gospel of Mark. This might or might not have any effect on your interpretation/application, but it should be taken into consideration either way. This example will focus on the Pharisees as the recipients of Jesus’ words.

Original Meaning – The Pharisees noticed that the disciples do not perform ritual washings before eating their meals and inquire of Jesus why his disciples do not follow the traditions of the elders. These washings were not part of the OT law, but had developed into a religious custom over time. It’s possible that the tradition grew out of an application of the priestly washings (see Lev. 7:19-21; 22:3-9) to all of life, perhaps using the concept that all of Israel is a Kingdom of Priests (see Ex 19:6). Jesus accuses the Pharisees of being hypocrites, honoring God with religious customs while setting aside His commandments in the process. The specific example given is that of “Corban.” The Jews has a custom whereby one could make a financial pledge to the temple and would be absolved of obligations that they might have had with the money (such as caring for one’s parents). As a result, this religious tradition had taken precedence over God’s command to honor father and mother.

Continuing Truth – Religious practices, however pious and honorable they might be, can become a hindrance to true worship and obedience of God. It is possible to have an external appearance of devotion and holiness, while our hearts are far removed from a love for God and a desire to obey Him. This hypocrisy may not even be evident to us. The Pharisees truly believed they were being devoted and obedient, but Jesus points out that this is not really the case as they had managed to disregard a clear command of God in observance of religion. This is a continuing theme throughout the Bible (See 1 Sam 15:20-23; Prov 21:3; Isa 1:11-17; Mic 6:6-8; Matt 23:23, etc). God desires our hearts, and he desires for us to obey Him.

Contemporary Application – The danger of falling into the hypocrisy of the Pharisees is just as real today as it was then, particularly in the area of Christian ministry. Do we have an equivalent to Corban? Consider the stories that abound of missionaries and pastors who have dedicated their lives to work of ministry, but who have neglected their families in the process. If I offer my life on the altar of Christian service, does that absolve me from the biblical command to provide for my family (both physically and spiritually)? If I give 10% of my income to the local church, am I then free from any other responsibility to provide for the poor and needy? If I attend a church service and a weekly Bible study, I am living out the biblical mandate for Christians to be a community marked by love and care for one another? Do any of our religious practices, however pious and devotional they may be, leave us setting aside a clear command of God, either explicitly or in practice?

Love in John 21

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:26:52 +0000

There is considerable debate over John’s use of two different words for love in John 21. I have read a lot of scholarship and arguments from both sides. Here’s where I am at this point:

1. The linguists are fundamentally correct in their assertion that the two words for love are often used synonymously and interchangeably, both in the NT and elsewhere (LXX and papyri).

2. However, it is not correct to say that they are used in John 21:15-17 for purely stylistic purposes with no distinction intended between the two.

3. I believe that John intends a play on words in this passage, with a subtle distinction that reinforces the plain message of the passage.

4. The proper translation of agapao and phileo in this passage would be “love” and the meaning that is underscored by the play on words is still distinguishable in English. This translation is preferred over some of the alternatives suggested during this discussion.

Fun with words in the Gospel of John

Here are some examples of intentional ambiguity and other word play in this Gospel:

1:5 - The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome (katalambanomai) it.
The word katalambanomai can mean both “overcome” or “understand.”I believe this is a rare case where both meanings fit and John was intentionally ambiguous in choosing this word.

3:7-8 - Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again (anōthen).’ The wind (pneuma) blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound (phōnē), but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit (pneuma).”

The word anōthen means both again and from above. The word pneuma means both wind and spirit. The word phōnē means both sound and voice. The meaning is clear, but a pun is clearly intended.

9:11 - The man called Jesus made mud and anointed (epechrisen) my eyes…

The word epichrio means “rub on by anointed or smearing.” The word Christos means “Anointed one, Messiah.” You can almost detect a pun in the sense of “the man Christ-ened my eyes” as the blind man received his sight and saw the Christ.

The context of John 21

Here is the context:

1. We have Peter boasting that he will never forsake Jesus, even if all the others do (implying that he loves Jesus more than the others).

2. We have Peter denying Jesus 3 times.

3. Jesus asks Peter, “Do you love me more than the other disciples?”

4. Peter tells Jesus that he loves him, but no longer boasts of doing so more than the others.

5. Jesus repeats his question 3 times, matching the number of time Peter denied him.

6. After each answer, Jesus issues a charge to Peter – “Feed my lambs” / “Tend my sheep” / “Feed my sheep

The subtle distinction in John 21

I don’t believe the internal evidence in John 21 is strong enough to insist that Peter and Jesus are speaking of two different kinds of love in the passage, with one being higher or lower or of a different nature than the other. Rather, it seems more likely from the context that the distinction is to be found, not in the type of love being discussed, but in the manner in which the love is recognized. Moreover, I think that the significance is probably to be found in the use of phileo, not agapao (though I will suggest a possible distinction for each).

Assume for the sake of argument that Jesus and Peter are referring to the same “type” of love, and that when Jesus says “do you love me?” and Peter replies “you know I love you” that they both have in their mind the same concept of what this “love” is. The distinction between the verbs would be this:

Agapao – Jesus’ question could be simply using the common word “love” with nothing special signified. If a special significance must be given to agapao here (though it isn’t necessary in this case), then it would probably be this: showing love by action.

Phileo – The significance of Peter’s response with phileo would be that Peter did, in fact, love Jesus, but the only basis with which he could make the claim was his feeling of love toward Jesus because he had no actions to stand on which would demonstrate his love.

(Let me emphasize, in this context these would not be two different kinds of love, one which feels and one which does. It would be two different ways in which we recognize or show the one love. One would be demonstrating love by action and the other would be demonstrating love by feeling. )

In this interpretation, the use of the two verbs serves to underscore what is already apparent in the text. That is, Peter professes to love Jesus, and Jesus calls him to live out that love in obedience to him. The last question is the most significant, because in using the phileo verb, Jesus questions even Peter’s feeling of love and follows with the same charge as he gave previously. The implication of this is that if Peter’s feeling of love is genuine, then it will be demonstrated in obedience. What the passage, (and John’s word play) seems to accomplish is the destruction of the false distinction between a love that feels and a love that acts when it comes to loving Christ. In other words, Jesus says to Peter (and all of us) “if you love me, keep my commandments.”

Summary Paraphrase

Jesus: Simon, son of John, do you show your love for me (or do you love me) more than these other disciples do?

Peter: Yes, Lord, you know that I have strong feelings of love for you (leaving out comparison with other disciples)

Jesus: Show me your love by feeding my lambs.

Jesus: Simon, son of John, do you show your love for me (or do you love me)?

Peter: Yes, Lord, you know that I have strong feelings of love for you.

Jesus: Show me your love by tending my sheep.

Jesus: Simon, son of John, do you really have strong feelings of love for me?

Peter (grieved because he has remembered his 3 denials and now Jesus questions not only his demonstration but actually feelings of love): Lord, you know everything, including my feelings; you know that I have strong feelings of love for you.

Jesus: Then show me your love by feeding my sheep.

Why do I think, even though I make a subtle distinction above, that “love” is still the best English translation of the two words in this passage? Because the sense which the above distinction draws out it still readily apparent from the flow of conversation even if it is unknown that two separate words are used. Using different words, such as “like”, “truly love”, “love as a friend”, etc., all denote more than the context allows and would steer the interpretation away from the main point of the passage.

Contemporary Example

A husband and wife have been married for a while. The husband has often boasted of his love for his wife and that he will always remain faithful. The husband falls in a night of temptation and cheats on his wife. He is devastated with guilt and genuinely repentant. He pleads with her for forgiveness, and she graciously receives him. This would be the equivalent conversation:

Wife: Would you say love me as you’ve boasted in the past?

Husband: I know my actions don’t show it, but I’m certain in my heart that I love you.

Wife: Show me by staying with me and remaining faithful.

Wife: Would you say that you love me?

Husband: I’m certain in my heart that I love you.

Wife: Show me by not leaving me and by caring for me.

Wife: Are you certain in your heart that you love me?

Husband: I don’t know what else to say, but I really do love you.

Wife: Show me by staying with me and caring for me.

Applying the Bible – Part 1: What is application?

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:25:00 +0000

While the Bible has immense value as a piece of literature, and can give great insight into certain aspects of ancient history and culture, this is not the reason most Christians read it. Ultimately, most Christians read the Bible because we believe that it is God’s word, not only to a people in a time and culture far removed from our own, but that it is God’s word to us in our time and in our culture. We believe that through the Bible we may come to a true knowledge of God and of ourselves, and may come to discern His will, including what He would have us believe and how He would have us live. The process by which we go from understanding the Bible in its literary and historical context to bringing the message of the Bible to bear on our contemporary situation is called application. It should the next to last step in Bible study, following the proper study of a text to determine its meaning, and it should result in the conforming of your life and thought to the word of God. After all, why would we go through the process of understanding and applying the Bible if we’re not going to obey it (see Matt 7:24-27, 1 John 2:3, etc)?

Before discussing how to apply the Bible, it will be helpful to understand what to expect from application, and some barriers that often hinder proper application.

What to Expect

1. How should I live? (or “Practical” Application) – Much of the Bible deals with the questions of what God expects from His people. Whether the command is to “make a parapet around your roof” (Deut. 22:8) or to “be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other” (Eph. 4:32), there is an expectation that living in obedience to God will involve conformity to His standards. For the original hearers, this would mean that not making a parapet or not forgiving each other would be an act of disobedience to God. When we seek to apply the passage today, our desire is for the same obedience to God, though proper application may result in quite different actions for us then it did for them (see Part 2 for examples). Beyond specific commands, application can give us the wisdom needed to make decisions in life.

2. How should I think? (or Theology/Worldview Formation) – Oftentimes, properly applying a passage will have a more direct result on the way you think and believe, rather than what you do (although your thoughts and beliefs will inevitably impact your actions). This is an underappreciated aspect of biblical application, but is quite important. While the Bible speaks directly to many areas of life, there are also many areas which the Bible does not directly address. Does this mean that the Bible has no relevance or that we cannot know the will of God in these areas? That’s not the case at all. By allowing the Bible to shape our view of life and reality, our values and actions will be less conformed to our surrounding culture, an instead transformed into that which is consistent with the revealed will of God. This type of application goes beyond a superficial application of a specific verse to complex social, economic, political, and scientific issues. Instead it allows you to use your renewed and biblically-informed mind to think through these issues in a faithful manner. Understanding what the Bible teaches about God, humanity, creation, fall, redemption, restoration, judgment, good, evil, suffering, etc., will form the lens with which you view reality and will help you see clearly as you think through the issues we face today. There are two topics under this category that deserve special attention:

a. Who is God? – Answering this question should be your primary goal when studying the Bible. Not just knowing who God is in name, but knowing Him. Knowing His character, His story, His works, His likes and His dislikes. As your knowledge of Him increases, so also will your love and fear of Him. This knowledge of God is the foundation of a biblical view of life. After all, this is eternal life (John 17:3) and the source of all true wisdom for living (Prov. 1:7; 9:10). The application of every passage of the Bible should begin with the question, “What does this tell me about God?”

b. Who am I? – Along with a proper understanding of God, the Bible will shed light on who we are (both individually and collectively). Throughout the Bible, we gain insight into the glory of a humanity which was created in the image of God, and the marring of that image through human sin. We come to understand ourselves in relation to God, and see the depths of our own sin exposed by the light of Scripture. Finally, in Jesus Christ, we see the true image of God, unmarred by sin, and the promise that by His grace we also will be restored to the true image God in Christ. So the second question to ask when applying every passage should be, “What does this tell me about sinful humanity?”

Barriers to Proper Application

1. Failure to pray – We must seek out God in prayer every time we engage His word. Our sin and prejudice leaves us prone to error, misunderstanding, and willful ignorance regarding what the Bible would teach us. Our prayer to God is that by His Spirit these barriers would be overcome and that we would be enlightened to see and acknowledge the truth, even when it is convicting or inconvenient.

2. Failure to study the context (both Historical and Literary) – It can sometimes be very tempting to jump from reading a passage to applying it, without taking the context into consideration. This is particularly true for certain parts of the New Testament. It may be true that certain passages will have a direct application for 21st-century Christians, but unless you study the context first, you can’t be sure that you’re not reading your own presuppositions back into the text.

3. Failure to acknowledge your presuppositions – No one reads the Bible in a vacuum. We all bring to the text a lifetime of experiences, beliefs, and assumptions. Additionally, each of our perspectives has been shaped by the various traditions with which we’ve been associated (whether Catholic, or Baptist, or Pentecostal, or Lutheran, or non-denominational, or Atheist, or Buddhist, etc). This is an unavoidable reality, and it’s impossible for anyone to come to a text from a completely neutral perspective. This is true not only for the Bible, but for all communication. The good news is that we are able to communicate and impart information to one another, and we can expect the same to be true with the Bible. The important thing is to recognize what those presuppositions are and to be willing to challenge them as we read, understand, and apply the Bible.

Understanding the Historical Context of Scripture

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:32:00 +0000

One of the key components in properly understanding a verse, section, or book of the Bible is to understand the historical context in which it was written. The Bible is God’s Word for all people and for all time, but much of the Bible is occasional in nature. That is, it was written at a particular point in history, by a particular inspired author, addressing a particular audience which faced a particular situation. With this in mind, proper interpretation involves finding out what the text says, understanding how it applied to the original audience and situation, determining the underlying principles which guided that application, and then applying those principles to parallel situations today. The historical context is the means by which we can gain clearer understanding of how the text would have been understood by the original audience. What should we look for when trying to understand the historical context? Three types of contextual information are fundamental and will go a long way in bringing the original context to light.

1. Old Testament Background – The New Testament makes extensive quotations and allusions to the Old Testament, and in many passages it is assumed that the audience understands the Old Testament context. For example, the NT concept that Jesus is the Lamb of God is properly understood only in the context of the OT sacrificial system (in particular, the Passover of Exodus). This is not only true for the NT, but also much of the OT. The historical books, wisdom literature, and prophets all make reference to or assume understanding of the Pentateuch. When examining a passage, look for quotations and allusions to the OT, or for concepts that might be explained elsewhere in the Bible. When you see a quotation, it’s a good idea to read it in its original OT context because many times the author will assume understanding of the whole context though only quoting a small portion. A Bible with a good cross-reference system can be very helpful for identifying quotations and allusions. See the recommend resources below for additional useful tools.

2. Specific Historical Situation – Understanding the occasion or the specific historical situation in which the book was written will help to guide your interpretation. Often times it will not be possible to know the full situation with certainty, but a partial understanding and knowledge of the range of possibilities can go a long way. For example, understanding that 1 and 2 Chronicles was written after the Jews began to return from exile and rebuild the temple in Jerusalem will help you to understand why the author focuses on certain themes over others. Understanding that 1 Corinthians was written to address specific problems with the church in Corinth will help you to follow Paul’s flow of thought as he touches on the various issues and will help prevent some possible misunderstandings or misinterpretations. The best sources for information on the specific historical situation would be clues from the book itself and introductions to books such as can be found in Bible dictionaries or at the start of a book in many study Bibles. See the recommend resources below for additional useful tools.

3. General Background (e.g. Cultural, Political, Religious, Economic, and Geographic) - Understanding the general background and cultural aspects of life during the time in which the book was written will help clarify the meaning behind concepts that may be foreign to our culture or provide other insight that may be missed due to cultural distance. Additionally, it may help us more appropriately apply a passage that has a cultural aspect to it. For example, if we attempt to directly apply Paul’s command to “Greet one another with a holy kiss,” this could result in some awkward social engagements in certain cultures. However, when we understand that the kisses were a common way to give someone a warm, affectionate greeting, then we can take the principle and apply it all cultures (Christians should greet one another with an affectionate greeting). Bible dictionaries and commentaries are often helpful sources of background information. See the recommend resources below for some useful tools.

**Example: **One of the earliest Christian creeds was the phrase “Jesus is Lord.” When a 21st century Christian reads those words today, the most common way that this is understood is in the sense of “Jesus is the boss” or “Jesus is in charge.” While this concept is certainly present in the phrase, an understanding of the historical context can provide additional insight into how significant this phrase was in the early church (and is for us today).

· Old Testament Context – The most common form of Scripture available to the Greek-speaking world was the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint (often abbrev. LXX). This is significant when we learn that the LXX translates the Divine name ‘Yahweh’ as ‘Lord’ (the Greek word kyrios) and that this is the same Greek word used in the statement “Jesus is Lord”. For a Greek-speaking Jew who was well-versed in the OT, there would be an instinctive connection between “the Lord” and Israel’s God, Yahweh. This subtle connection is made explicit when we study the Old Testament context of the “Jesus is Lord” passages. Compare the following NT passages and their corresponding OT quotations/allusions (Note: Most English translations translate Yahweh as LORD in all caps):

Romans 10:9-13 with Joel 2:32
Philippians 2:10-11 with Isaiah 45:23-25
1 Peter 3:14-15 with Isaiah 8:12-13

(For further examples – Jn. 12:40-41/Isa. 6:1-10; Heb.1:10-12/Psa. 102:25-27; 1 Cor. 2:8/Psa. 24)

· Political Context – In Roman society, it would not be uncommon for people to profess their allegiance to Caesar using the phrase “Caesar is Lord.” By this they would be declaring that Caesar is the supreme ruler and king over all. In fact, as the emperor cult grew in prominence towards the end of the 1st century and into the 2nd century, refusing to confess “Caesar is Lord” and offer incense to his image would be punishable by death. For Christians in this environment, the confession that “Jesus is Lord” rather than Caesar was no glib concession to Christ, but was a profession of allegiance on which they would often have to stake their lives.

Within the historical context above, the simple statement “Jesus is Lord” carries a lot of weight and could be understood in the sense of:”In the person of Jesus, Yahweh has visited His people and has taken His rightful place upon the throne as King over all creation, and to Him belongs all glory, all honor, and all praise.”

Recommended Resources for Historical Context:

Choosing a Bible Translation

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:35:00 +0000

Why are there so many different Bible versions? What’s the difference between them? How do I know which one to choose? If you’ve ever stood in the Bible section of a bookstore, I’m sure these questions have come to mind. While choosing a Bible is ultimately a matter of personal preference, a little information about the different versions available can go a long way in helping you to make an informed decision. The goal of every English Bible is to accurately convey the meaning of the original languages (Hebrew for the OT, Greek for the NT) into English. Unfortunately, since no two languages share all of the same characteristics, a translation is never exact. There is a continuous need for revision because of gradual changes in the English language, advancements in Greek and Hebrew language studies, new manuscript evidence, and a desire to improve upon the accuracy of an existing translation. Add to this competing translation philosophies and sufficient funds and ‘Voila,’ we have a plethora of English translations at our disposal.

So what’s the difference between them? Are they all essentially the same? One of the best ways to understand how two translations differ is to know the principles that guided the way each was translated. There are three broad styles of translation will help us distinguish the various translations (though 3 categories are presented below, the reality is much more like a sliding scale than neatly fitting categories).

1. Formal (or Direct) Equivalence – This style seeks a literal reproduction of the original text, including sentence structure and word order. This usually involves an attempt to translate each word in the original language with an equivalent word in English whenever possible. Sometimes called “word for word.”

Example translations: KJV (1769), NRSV (1989), NASB (1995), ESV (2001)

Pro: By maintaining the structure of the original, logical connections and subordinate clauses will often come through clearer than in a dynamic translation where the tendency is to shorten sentences for smoother reading. In the example below, we see that v7 is a dependent clause to v6, suggesting that the manner in which we humble ourselves is by casting our anxieties on Him.

1 Peter 5:6-7 (ESV) - Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.
1 Peter 5:6-7 (NLT) - So humble yourselves under the mighty power of God, and at the right time he will lift you up in honor. Give all your worries and cares to God, for he cares about you.

Con: By seeking a “word for word” rendering, certain phrases may not be easily understood by the English reader.

Matthew 3:15 (ESV) - But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.
Matthew 3:15 (NLT) - But Jesus said, “It should be done, for we must carry out all that God requires.” So John agreed to baptize him.

2. Dynamic (or Functional) Equivalence – This style attempts to translate the meaning of the text as it would have been understood by the original readers in a way that results in the same understanding for the readers of the translation. Sometimes called “though for thought.”

Example translations: NIV (1978), HCSB (2004), NLT (2004), TNIV (2005)

Pro: By seeking an equivalent phrase in English to convey the message of the original, it often reads more smoothly than a formal translation, thereby aiding comprehension.

Ephesians 4:20-24 (NASB) - But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit
Ephesians 4:20-24 (NLT) - But that isn’t what you learned about Christ. Since you have heard about Jesus and have learned the truth that comes from him, throw off your old sinful nature and your former way of life, which is corrupted by lust and deception.

Con: In a dynamic translation, the translator is often required to make interpretive decisions that may or may not be the correct one. This decision would be left up to the reader in a formal translation.

1 Corinthians 5:5 (ESV) - you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 5:5 (NLT) - Then you must throw this man out and hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself will be saved on the day the Lord returns.

3. Free Translation (or Paraphrase) – When translating from the original languages, this style could be considered a stronger form of dynamic equivalence, with an emphasis on conveying the ideas of the original with less concern for the words and the form used. Some versions in this category are not translations from the original, but a paraphrase of an existing English translation.

Example translations: TEV (1976), TLB (1971), NCV (1991), The Message (2002)

Pro: Since the paraphrase is not as tied to the words and form of the original as the other translations, they are capable of producing much more vivid pictures for the reader.

Psalm 73:11-14 (ESV) - And they say, “How can God know? Is there knowledge in the Most High?” Behold, these are the wicked; always at ease, they increase in riches. All in vain have I kept my heart clean and washed my hands in innocence. For all the day long I have been stricken and rebuked every morning.
Psalm 73:11-14 (The Message) - What’s going on here? Is God out to lunch? Nobody’s tending the store. The wicked get by with everything; they have it made, piling up riches. I’ve been stupid to play by the rules; what has it gotten me? A long run of bad luck, that’s what— a slap in the face every time I walk out the door.

Con: Interpretive decisions must be made similar to the dynamic equivalent translations, though more frequent in number (see dynamic example above).

So which do you choose: formal, dynamic, or paraphrase? The best answer is, “Yes!” There are benefits to each type, and it’s a good idea to consult multiple translations during your study of a passage. Oftentimes, the differences between them will give you insight into the different ways a specific verse could be (and probably has been) interpreted.

This discussion has not touched on every area in which translations can differ, but you should be more equipped to wade through the many options the next time you purchase a new Bible. The good news in all this is that most newer translations (such as the TNIV, NLT, ESV, and HCSB) have attempted to incorporate the best features of both the dynamic and formal methods, attempting to achieve optimum accuracy and readability even if they lean more towards one end of the spectrum. Ultimately, the best translation will be the one that you will actually read. Find a translation that you are comfortable with and use it as your primary Bible, then have an alternate translation available to consult during deeper study of a passage.

Hope against Hope – Part 3 – When Hope Seems to Fail

Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:00 +0000

The Response of Job – Worship and Honest Supplication

Job was an extremely wealthy man - one who feared God and turned away from evil. He had ten children and was clearly blessed beyond measure. However, within the course of a day, Job receives news that all of his oxen and donkeys have been stolen and his servants murdered, all of his sheep and their shepherds have been consumed by a fire from the sky, and all of his children have been killed in a tornado. Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” Job 1:20-21

What is Job’s response? He is devastated and distraught. He mourns as any human being would in the face of such tragedy. It’s important to note this part, lest you read the following sentence as some kind of platitude denying the reality of the situation. As if he had said, “Oh well, praise God anyway.” Job is worshipping in the midst of his intense mourning, acknowledging the God who created him, who blessed him with all that he has ever had, and who has now, in his sovereign will, taken those blessings away.

It does not end here…

Job is struck with a horrible skin disease from his head to his toe (Job 2:7-8; Job 7:5). He finds himself sitting in ashes scraping off dead skin with a broken piece of pottery. He has reached rock bottom at this point.

Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.” But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” Job 2:9-10

Job’s wife has seen enough and she tells him to curse God and die, yet Job refuses. There are roots that go much deeper than Job’s possessions, family, and even his own health. God is not a compartment of Job’s life, but is the very foundation of it. Though he doesn’t know what God is doing, he refuses to lose faith and he knows that there is no one else to turn to in this situation but God himself. You can hear the echoes of Psalm 73:25-26 and Psalm 63:3 throughout the book.

It’s worth noting here that the book reveals more to us about what was going on than Job himself knew at the time. We see the scene in heaven, where Satan comes before God and challenges the Job’s faith. Satan says that Job only fears God because he has been blessed with so much, and later that he only fears God because he has his health. God permits Satan to take away everything Job has, and then later to take his health, only requiring that his life be spared. So the actual agent in Job’s calamity was Satan. However, both times Job credits God with what has happened. Was Job wrong? Did he falsely accuse God for his circumstances when it was actually Satan who harmed him? Job 1:22 and Job 2:10 seem to indicate that this was not the case. Instead, Job knows that God is sovereign, and though there may be other agents involved, nothing comes to pass without his consent. Therefore, he goes to the source, the only one whose will must be done, and acknowledges that God is ultimately the source of everything that he receives, both good and bad.

Though he slay me, I will hope in him; yet I will argue my ways to his face. Job 13:15

So in the midst of this suffering, Job worships God and demonstrates that God is more precious to him than everything that he has lost. His hope is in God himself, and not simply in the gifts that God gives. However, the book of Job is not advocating an attitude of stoicism here. Facing immense pain and suffering, Job takes his case to God, to plead with him. The next 35 chapters consist of the back and forth between Job and his friends, and Job’s appeals to God.

Eliphaz: God does not punish the innocent, so clearly you are being disciplined. Hold in there and he will restore you.
Job: I have no strength to wait and I wish that God would just finish me off. Show me where I have done wrong!
Bildad: God is not unjust. Your children sinned and were delivered up. Plead to God for mercy and he will restore you.
Job: I know that God is all-wise and no one can contend with him and say, “What are you doing?” I am blameless, yet I suffer like this. I see that the blameless and the wicked are both destroyed in calamity. God, why am I suffering like this though I am innocent?
Zophar: You cannot speak that way about God. Remove iniquity and injustice from you and he will restore you.
Job: I know all these things. I know that God is all-wise and powerful, yet that is not helping me. Why do you guys stick up for God and show partiality? God will judge you. God, withdraw your hand from me and let me speak to you. Show me my sin.
Eliphaz: How dare you speak about God like that! The wicked suffer because of their wickedness.
Job: You all are miserable comforters. I am ready to die.
Bildad: God punishes the wicked and they are brought low.
Job: Your words are torture. All my friends have forsaken me and I am despised of men. I know that my Vindicator lives and that he will vindicate me. Though I am going to die, I will see God.
Zophar: Don’t you know that the wicked will suffer greatly in the earth?
Job: Look at me, and what do you see?! Yet look at the world. The wicked become great kings and prosper, though they say, “We have no need of God.” I see the wicked succeed at every turn. Clearly, your words are of no comfort.
Eliphaz: Clearly you are full of sin! You’ve stolen from your brothers. You’ve refused water to the thirsty and food to the hungry. You’ve despised widows and orphans. Repent and return to God.
Job: I want to speak with God and plead my case before him. Where is he? Where is his justice?
Bildad: No man can be in the right before God!
Job: God is all powerful and who can understand his ways. I refuse to accept all of your accusations against me. Until I day, I will confess my innocence in this matter. Where is wisdom to be found but in God? The fear of the LORD is wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding.
Zophar: Silence
Job: I wish that things were like they used to be, when everything was pleasant, and I acted righteously to those who were suffering. But now I am scorned and abhorred and my afflictions have overwhelmed me. If I have been sinful, then let my judgment come upon me, but I insist that this is not so.

At this point, a new speaker emerges. Elihu, who has been listening up to this point, can no longer remain silent. When considering his words, take two things into account: 1. Unlike his other friends, Job does not counter Elihu and seek to defend himself. 2. When God declares Job’s friends in the wrong, he does not include Elihu in his judgment.

“Man is also rebuked with pain on his bed
and with continual strife in his bones,
so that his life loathes bread,
and his appetite the choicest food.
His flesh is so wasted away that it cannot be seen,
and his bones that were not seen stick out.
His soul draws near the pit,
and his life to those who bring death.
If there be for him an angel,
a mediator, one of the thousand,
to declare to man what is right for him,
and he is merciful to him, and says,
‘Deliver him from going down into the pit;
I have found a ransom;
let his flesh become fresh with youth;
let him return to the days of his youthful vigor’;
then man prays to God, and he accepts him;
he sees his face with a shout of joy,
and he restores to man his righteousness.
He sings before men and says:
‘I sinned and perverted what was right,
and it was not repaid to me.
He has redeemed my soul from going down into the pit,
and my life shall look upon the light.’
“Behold, God does all these things,
twice, three times, with a man,
to bring back his soul from the pit,
that he may be lighted with the light of life.
Job 33:19-30

The godless in heart cherish anger;
they do not cry for help when he binds them.
They die in youth,
and their life ends among the cult prostitutes.
He delivers the afflicted by their affliction
and opens their ear by adversity.
He also allured you out of distress
into a broad place where there was no cramping,
and what was set on your table was full of fatness.
Job 36:13-16

The insight that Elihu’s speech provides is that both the righteous and the wicked do indeed suffer affliction, but that God is not punishing the righteous. Instead, he is saving them by means of their affliction, bringing them into a place of blessedness. He is purifying them of sin, and bringing them into a greater knowledge of himself.

The book of Job often leaves one with more questions than answers, but it is a book worth dwelling on. God does not explain to Job why he has suffered, nor does he offer a defense to Job. Yet it appears that Job’s interpretation of his own suffering has changed, and he no longer desires vindication from God. Ironically, Job is vindicated after all and God declares that he spoke what is right, unlike Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. I’ll leave it to you to ponder the mysteries and the questions of Job, but consider:

The righteous do suffer, and God has allowed it
Satan is often the immediate agent of this, even acting through natural disasters, but he must be permitted by God to do so
In worshipping through suffering, the righteous display that they treasure God above all else
The intent of suffering for the righteous is not punitive, but salvific
There are times when it is clear that someone’s suffering is the result of a specific sin of which they are in denial or unrepentant (e.g. David and Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:7-14) and the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:27-34)) and the proper response is confrontation on the part of their brothers, and repentance on the part of the one who sinned. However, other times (as in Job’s case) this is not clear, and the proper response of the comforters is to weep with those who weep, and comfort them in the knowledge that God is sovereign and that he does not afflict his children with retribution as a judge, but with the hands of a loving Father he brings them up in righteousness and is conforming them to the image of his Son. The proper response of the one suffering is to seek after God with a humble honesty, laying their hearts bare before God, prepared with the knowledge that they may not receive an explanation, but may instead have an encounter with the living God.

Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good. 1 Peter 4:19

Hope against Hope – Part 2 – What if it doesn’t happen?

Sun, 17 May 2009 14:28:00 +0000

We know that God is faithful and that we can stand in hope against the wave of faithlessness and slander which cries out, “Your God is not trustworthy!” But what do you do if something unexpected happens? When the deliverance hasn’t come as you anticipated? When the thing that you had hoped for did not come to pass? When it seems as if the cry of the faithless is right? How do you respond when it happens? Is it unbelief to even consider such things? The Response of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego - Obedience

Then Nebuchadnezzar in furious rage commanded that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be brought. So they brought these men before the king. Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up? Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good. But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?”
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” Dan 3:12-18

Nebuchadnezzar has commanded that the people worship the golden image that he has setup. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse, preferring to obey the God of Israel rather than be spared the penalty of death in a fiery furnace. This is actually an account of a miraculous act of deliverance by the Almighty, and is well worth reading and savoring. However, for the purposes at hand, three little words in their answer to the king are critical:

**But if not…

Through preaching, teaching, exhortation, bible study, etc, these pastors and leaders should be seeking to prepare you to engage in the primary ministry of bringing every aspect of your life under the reign of King Jesus. By growing in the knowledge of the Jesus Christ and the truth of the gospel, you will be equipped to recognize and combat sin in every area of your own life, and to stand against injustice and immorality in the the world around you. By knowing the truth, you will be able to engage and counter false ideas that abound in the workplace, at social gatherings, and everywhere else in the world. Rather than unwittingly being lead astray, you will stand as a beacon of truth. By growing in your understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit and the fellowship of believers, your love for the children of God will grow to new heights and you will be equipped to minister with love to fellow believers, and to go out together ministering with love to unbelievers. The Church is not built up and ministered to by the pastoral staff, it is a self-building and self-ministering body, having been equipped to do so by those pastors, teachers, etc.

So while it is the job of the pastors and teachers is to do the equipping, it is the job of the “lay person” to come to be equipped, for they too are ministers of Christ. Do not go to a church to passively receive a message that can somehow cheer you up or improve your life. Go seeking to be trained and equipped for the work of the ministry.

In his book Being the Body, Chuck Colson lists eight examples of areas in which churches should seek to equip their saints:

1. To know and defend their faith and to apply it in the world

2. To lead exemplary lives in the marketplace

3. To build strong marriages and families

4. To “train up children in the way they should go”

5. To fulfill their various vocations to the glory of God

6. To be good stewards of financial resources

7. To identify their own evangelistic gifts and use them effectively in the marketplace

8. To give specialized training which enables people to reach out to those in particular types of physical and spiritual need

Hope against Hope - Part 1 - The God of hope

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:52:00 +0000

Hope against hope – that is the call of every Christian sojourning in this world. We have the promise of persecution and trial (2 Tim 3:12; John 16:33), and in the face of that, the promise of hope. The persecution of the world in America is not torture, imprisonment, or political exile (as some of our brothers and sisters face this very hour). It is a much more subtle, much more deadly assault. You may not be persecuted in this sense for claiming the name of Christ, but slowly we are being persuaded to lose hope in God. Is he trustworthy? Is he reliable? For today’s persecutors, the answer is “No!” The evidence is all around you. The misery of the whole world demonstrates that he is not helping (they say). At the same time, abundance and wealth lull us into a sense of satisfaction and contentment – not in God, but in the things themselves – to the point that we are tempted to rely on and put our confidence in them. “God may not be there for me at retirement, but I sure hope my investments are.” For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world— our faith. 1 John 5:4

Jesus said that He has given us his words that we may have peace, though in the world we will have tribulation. “Be of good cheer,” he says, “for I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33) The trial of our faith is to believe and trust him in the face of a whirlwind of opposition – that we may have peace. Left to ourselves, we may be facing a pretty bleak future, but he knows this, and he has sent the Holy Spirit, our Comforter. We take comfort in knowing that by letting our requests be known to God, the peace that surpasses all understanding will guard our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus (Phi 4:6-7). And having this peace, we rest assured that God will supply all of our needs according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus (Phi 4:19).

Are any of you anxious? Are any concerned about an uncertain future in a cold and scary world? Ask God for peace, and he will supply it. This is our prayer:

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope. Rom 15:13

Rest assured that the source of your joy and peace is the power of the infinite and eternal God, and more specifically we realize this power by believing in him.

The question may be asked, “Well that’s great for my spiritual development, but how does that help me pay the bills tomorrow? How does that help me in the face of all the horrors of the world?” Jesus said:

“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Matt 6:25-33

We’re all familiar with these comforting words – but do you believe them? Do you realize that part of believing Jesus is believing in words like the above? If we cannot trust him when he says things like that, how can we trust him when he says things like this:

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. John 5:24

We are Christians, and by the power of the Holy Spirit believe that Jesus’ words about eternal life are true. Let us pray for the power to believe that his words elsewhere are also true. Let us lean wholly on the faithfulness of God, who has shown himself to be faithful in all things, and trust in him for every situation and circumstance in life.

“Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Luke 12:32

How valuable and precious is this kingdom? It may not be readily apparent, because it is a hidden treasure. However, in the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ, we have been given a glimpse into this treasure, and it is infinitely valuable.

The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it. Matt 13:44-45

A Child is Born

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0000

A child is born into the world,
And my heart fills with joy.
Love streams forth from fountains;
Fountains which I never knew existed.
Your precious child, O Lord,
Such a gracious gift to me.
With one act of kindness,
I glimpse into the wonders of Your love.
One act of mercy humbles me.
A gift deeper than the darkest sea.
Your precious Child, O Lord,
From Whom streams forth fountains;
Fountains of living water that revive my soul.
And my heart fills with joy -
A Child is born into the world.

1 Kings 19:9-13 - So We Do Not Lose Heart

Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:57:00 +0000

There he came to a cave and lodged in it. And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, and he said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” He said, “I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away.” And he said, “Go out and stand on the mount before the LORD.” And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper. And when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his cloak and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave… 1Ki 19:9-13a

Elijah was a prophet that God had used to accomplish awesome works among the people of Israel. God speaks to him and directs his paths, and Elijah has done what the LORD commanded of him. Yet, at this point he finds himself despairing and discouraged at the results. He has just come off a great victory over the worshippers of Baal. Through the power of God, he has made a public spectacle of their idolatry, demonstrating to one and all that the LORD alone is God (1Ki 18:21-40). However, when King Ahab’s wife Jezebel finds out about this, she swears that she will have him killed. So Elijah flees into the wilderness and pleads for God to just put him out of his misery, but God preserves him and provides him the strength to make it to Mount Horeb after 40 days (1Ki 19:1-8). His pleading is reminiscent of Moses’ despair with the people of Israel (Num 11:15), and Jonah’s despair after Nineveh’s repentance (Jon 4:3). It is here that Elijah expresses his despair, and God answers him.

What follows is a peculiar repetition, with the wind, earthquake, fire, and the small voice followed by:

… And behold, there came a voice to him and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” He said, “I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away.” And the LORD said to him, “Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus. And when you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael to be king over Syria. And Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint to be king over Israel, and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you shall anoint to be prophet in your place. And the one who escapes from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu put to death, and the one who escapes from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha put to death. Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.” 1Ki 19:13b-18

In his Old Testament Theology, Bruce Waltke points out a significant pattern in this repetition:

A – “What are you doing here, Elijah?”
B – “I only am left”
    C – “Go”
      D – Wind
        E – Earthquake
          F – Fire
      D – God was not in the wind
        E – God was not in the earthquake
          F – God was not in the fire
            G– Low whisper

A – “What are you doing here, Elijah?”
B – “I only am left”
    C – “Go”
      D – Anoint Hazael
        E – Anoint Jehu
          F – Anoint Elisha
      D – Sword of Hazael
        E – Sword of Jehu
           F – Sword of Elisha
             G – Remnant of 7000

I would add to this following pattern stemming from Elijah’s complaint:

A – They have forsaken your covenant
B – They have thrown down your altars
    C – They have killed your prophets
      D – I am the only one left
A – Wind
B – Earthquake
    C – Fire
      D – Low whisper
A – Anoint Hazael
B – Anoint Jehu
    C – Anoint Elisha
      D – Remnant of 7000

By comparing the two passages, we see the significance of God’s answer to Elijah. The people have forsaken the covenant, thrown down the altars, and killed the prophets. All of the things Elijah has done appear to have amounted to nothing. It appears as though the word of God has failed. However, God promises that, indeed, judgment will come upon the house of Israel, with the king of Syria bringing defeat to the covenant-breaking nation, Jehu defeating the worshippers of Baal, and Elisha prophesying against the people. Most significantly, however, is that the real work of God is found in the preservation of the remnant of 7000 men who have not worshipped Baal.

Indeed, the word of God has not failed, but will accomplish what he has purposed for it (Isa 55:11). Elijah has lost heart because he has lost sight of God’s faithfulness, and in his eagerness to see dramatic results from his work, he misses the work of God in the “low whisper”

The apostle Paul learns from Elijah’s experience, and when faced with the Jews rejecting salvation through faith in their promised Messiah, he must answer the question, “Has the word of God failed?” (Rom 3:3; Rom 9:6) Have God promises for Israel come to nothing? Has he rejected his people?

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. Rom 11:1-5

Paul had gained the perspective which Elijah lacked. He learned that the gospel he preached, in so far as he preached it faithfully, was successful regardless of the apparent result (or lack thereof) (cf. 2Co 2:14-16; 2Co 4:1-6). He also learned that the afflictions he faced and the hardships he encountered were not an occasion for despair, but rather rejoicing (Rom 5:3-5). His apparent failures turn out to be God’s great victories, and through his weaknesses God is shown to be strong.

But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you. Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we also believe, and so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God. So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. 2Co 4:7-18 (also see 2Co 12:7-10)

This eternal perspective is the key to not losing heart. We, for whom these things were written (Rom 15:4), should take this to heart as well. Glorious eternal victories are being won through our failures, our weaknesses, our suffering, and our defeats. While we are busy looking at the wind, earthquake, and fire, let us not lose sight of God accomplishing the miraculous through the low whisper.

Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Heb 13:20-21

He Is Exalted!

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 05:08:00 +0000

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.(Php 2:5-11) When we note that “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess” is an allusion to Isaiah 45, this exhortation to humility leads the careful reader to a humbling moment of worship at the feet of the risen Lord:

Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’ Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength; to him shall come and be ashamed all who were incensed against him. In the LORD all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory.” (Isa 45:21-25)

Paul says that God has highly exalted Jesus and bestowed on him the name that is above every name. Here we have the Son of God humbling himself, not only by becoming a man, but by becoming obedient to the point of death on the cross. He took upon himself the just wrath of God due to us sinners, thereby vindicating God’s righteousness, so that he might just, while at the same time justifying wicked men (Pr 17:15). This is the heart of why Christ’s death saves us:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it– the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:21-26)

He humbled himself in obedience, becoming the Lamb of God, whose sacrifice takes away the sin of the world (Jhn 1:29). For this reason, God has raised the God-Man Jesus from the dead and crowned him with glory and honor (Heb 2:9) and has given him all authority in heaven and on earth (Mat 28:18). This man, this last Adam (Rom 5:12-21; 1Co 15:45), ascends to heaven and sits at the right hand of God.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. (Heb 1:3-4)

When we consider Christ, we should think of the crucified, risen, ascended, and exalted Lord of the Universe, who is sitting at the right hand of God the Father, interceding on our behalf (Rom. 8:34), and who will return in judgment and glory. He is worthy of all our honor and praise!

Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, and I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped. (Rev 5:1-14)

Romans 6 - Be What You Are

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:35:00 +0000

View PDF

Romans 5:12-21 - Death in Adam, Life in Christ

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:35:00 +0000

View PDF

Thanks from a Whole Heart

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I give you thanks, O Lord, with my whole heart…

Do I, Lord? Search me and show me
Have I, Lord? Walk with me, know me
You’ve given me life, and many joyful days
I cried to you for a wife, now I stand here amazed

Standing before angels or kings
My whole heart should burst out and sing
You’ve answered me whenever I call
You’ve lifted me whenever I fall

You have glorified your word and name
Give me strength, Lord, that I do the same
You are magnified above all kings on earth
And they’ll testify to your surpassing worth

Though you are high and lifted up
You still draw nigh to the lowly and sup
I weep at your feet as one in mourning
For your mercies are new every morning

Though I face death, or more likely humility
You give me life; you’re my rock of stability
Adversaries and sins perplex me in every way
But you have said, “Vengeance in mine. I will repay.”

I know that forever your love endures
And your purposes for me are secure
I seek to give you thanks with all that I can
I ask that you don’t forsake me, the work of your hands

My Help Comes From the Lord! ~ Psalm 121

Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:07:00 +0000

Psalms 121
I lift up my eyes to the hills. From where does my help come?
My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth.
He will not let your foot be moved; he who keeps you will not slumber.
Behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.
The LORD is your keeper; the LORD is your shade on your right hand.
The sun shall not strike you by day, nor the moon by night.
The LORD will keep you from all evil; he will keep your life.
The LORD will keep your going out and your coming in from this time forth and forevermore.

This Psalm is one of the “Psalms of Ascent,” often thought to be sung by pilgrims on the way to Zion during one of the annual feasts (Exo. 34:23; Deut. 16:16; 1 Sam. 1:3; Luk. 2:41). You can imagine the psalmist, looking off into the distance at the foreboding journey, and feeling quite uneasy about what lies ahead.

In some ways, I can see this psalm as a parable of my own life and faith. I will often find myself imagining Jesus saying to me, “O, you of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Mat. 8:26; Mat. 14:31; Mat. 16:8; Luk. 12:28). The arrows come from all sides, “Fear this! Fear this!” Pondering the journey ahead, just as the psalmist looked to the hills towards Zion, we can’t help but ask in our hearts, “From where does my help come?” Some may not even ask the question at all. Instead they just assume there is no help coming, and we need to rely on our own strength or we will fail.

We know better than this, right? We must ask the question, if only for a chance to give the answer:

~My Help Comes From the LORD~

Easy to say, but on what basis can we say that? Why should I be confident in the Lord’s help? Well, for one, he is able, seeing as he “made heaven and earth.” Hebrews 11:3 says this:

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

How often do you stop to consider this simple fact - “He created the universe?” Think about it, and you can see where the psalmist is going. If we confess (as every Christian does) that God made the universe, what exactly are we saying if we don’t trust him? Obviously, he’s powerful enough to help (he made the universe!). Then what? By not trusting him, we are essentially saying that either he is not good, or he is not on our side.

We know better than this, because we know that he keeps (guards) Israel as a people, and anyone who is in Israel as an individual. We might also say that he keeps and guards Christ, and anyone who is in Christ. On what basis? Well, Jesus prayed for it:

And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:11-15, 20-21)

In many ways, our foundation is more secure than the psalmist, since we know him – not only as Creator of the universe and keeper of Israel, but also as Redeemer and Friend (John 15:13). We also have the confidence of rock solid logic. That is, we believe that Christ died for our sins. More than that, we believe that the Father sent his Son with the express purpose of dying for our sins. Therefore, if he has already done the most difficult thing to keep us, guard us, and save us, how can we not trust him in the infinitely smaller and easier things (cf. Rom. 8:31-32)?

Never lose sight of the glorious gospel of Christ, and never stop pursuing a deeper understanding of it. For the gospel is the power of God, not only to bring us to Christ, but to keep us in Christ. Belief in the gospel is not only the means by which we are justified (that is, forgiven and counted righteous before God), but it is also the means by which we are being sanctified (that is, made to be righteous).

We have a superior revelation and a better covenant than the psalmist, so our hope should be all the surer. If we can confidently say in our hearts, “My help comes from the LORD,” then we have found the key to overcoming sin and temptation, fear and unbelief, and any troubles that we encounter in this life – from this time forth and forevermore.

The Bible on the Treatment of Immigrants

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:37:00 +0000

The Old Testament has some interesting things to say regarding the treatment of immigrants among the people of Israel:

Prohibitions on oppression and unfair treatment (Exo. 22:21; Exo. 23:9; Deut. 10:18-19; Deut. 24:17; Eze. 22:7; Eze. 22:29; Zech. 7:10)
They are held to the same laws as natives (Exo. 12:19; Lev. 17:15; Lev. 24:22; Num. 9:14; Num. 15:15; Num. 15:30; Lev. 19:34)
They are included in the provisions for the orphans, widows, and other poor (Lev. 19:10; Lev. 23:22; Deut. 14:29; Deut. 24:19-21; Deut 26:12-13)

While we can’t take the laws and customs of the Israelites and transplant them directly to a Christian era under secular governments, there are certainly underlying principles that apply regardless of the culture and context. Throughout the Old Testament, the reason God gives for this treatment of sojourners or foreigners is that the Israelites themselves were once sojourners in the land of Egypt. Christians everywhere should be able to relate to this sentiment, seeing as we are but sojourners ourselves with a heavenly citizenship (Php 3:20; Heb. 13:14)

Losing your life for Christ - John 12:23-26

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:46:00 +0000

And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him. John 12:23-26

Two things are in view in this passage:

1. We have Jesus, the Son of God, taking up his cross in obedience to his Father, forsaking his own life and dying in order to glorify both the Father and the Son.

2. We have Jesus telling those who would be his disciples that they must hate their lives in this world and follow him – with the promise of suffering even as Jesus suffered, but also being honored with eternal life.

There is really only one theme here: that of the master leading the way and the servants following suit, forsaking everything just as their master has done. It’s jarring to note that this statement of Jesus – “Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” – occurs in all four of the gospel accounts, sometimes two or three times, making one of (if not the) most repeated sayings of Jesus in the Bible.

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Matthew 16:24-25

Our call as disciples of Christ is to relinquish our claim to everything we have and everything we are, realizing that we are not our own but have been bought with a price, and that we do not have anything that we have not received as a gift. Knowing this, we are to sacrifice everything for the sake of obeying the will of God.

This is the design of the kingdom of God and in this sacrifice of everything the grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies. Jesus Christ is the primary and ultimate fulfillment of this, forsaking everything he had or might have had in this world, resisting any desire that would conflict with his Father’s will, and becoming obedient even to the point of death on the cross. And in this death, he purchased the salvation of all who would believe in him, bearing much fruit.

Following after Christ, Christians throughout history have been God’s instruments for bearing fruit. Remaining steadfast in their confession, in the face of persecution and even to the point of death, these Christians have fueled the growth of the Church from its early days up to the present day. These dying grains of wheat have produced more fruit than any man can number. In the second century, Tertullian bore witness to this phenomenon:

“We are not a new philosophy but a divine revelation. That’s why you can’t just exterminate us - the more you kill the more there are. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church…Because those who see us die wonder why we do, for we die like the men you revere, not like slaves and criminals. And when they find out, they join us.”

The faith whose hope transcends all earthly passions and even life itself, which even makes men willing to be lead as sheep to the slaughter for the sake of the joy that awaits them beyond that – this faith is a living witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The fact is, we are all called to be martyrs and we must all lose our lives for Christ’s sake. This may not manifest itself in physical torture or death at the hands of persecutors, though that undoubtedly may be true for some of us. Nevertheless, loss and persecution are the norm for Christians.

Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 2 Timothy 3:12

This persecution can take many forms beyond beatings and imprisonment. It may be verbal abuse or humiliation by friends, family, or co-workers when you remain firm in obedience to Christ in opposition to conventional wisdom. It may mean losing a job or being passed up for a promotion when you refuse to comply with ethically dubious business practices. The list goes on… We need not seek physical martyrdom – if we seek out and live the will of God in our lives, we will lose our lives in this world sure enough.

In his book, The Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote:

“To endure the cross is not a tragedy: it is the suffering which is the fruit of an exclusive allegiance to Jesus Christ. The cross means sharing in the suffering of Christ to the last and to the fullest… As we embark upon discipleship we surrender ourselves to Christ in union with his death – we give over our lives to death. Thus it begins; the cross is not the terrible end to an otherwise God-fearing and happy life, but it meets us at the beginning of our communion with Christ. When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die. It may be a death like that of the first disciples who had to leave home and work to follow him, or it may be a death like Luther’s who had to leave the monastery and go out into the world. But it is the same death every time – death in Jesus Christ, the death of the old man at his call.”

In the great hall of faith of Hebrews 11, we find several examples of people who lost their lives in obedience to God’s will, and in the process gained life:

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. Hebrews 11:8-9

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” Hebrews 11:17-18

By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. Hebrews 11:24-26

In Philippians 3, we see Paul, who by most standards had much to be proud of:

Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. Philippians 3:5-6

Of this he says:

But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith– that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Philippians 3:7-11

Finally, we see Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (Heb. 12:2)

Let us despise the shame that comes with being obedient to Christ, not counting it worthy of our concern. Let us seek out his will, which has been revealed to us in the Bible, and then let us take up our crosses and follow him, sharing in his sufferings and knowing that we will also share in his glory.

I leave you with this exhortation from Hebrews 13:

So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come. Hebrews 13:12-14

John 3:16-21 - They Loved the Darkness More than the Light

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:15:00 +0000

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” John 3:16-21

This passage contains what is probably the most familiar verse in the Bible, where we have God demonstrating His love for the world by sending His one and only Son into the world to give life to those who believe. It’s well-known for good reason, because it is on this rock of God’s love that we find the basis of our hope. In Romans, Paul uses this gift of love as the foundation for his confidence in God in the face of trials, suffering, and death:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died–more than that, who was raised–who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Romans 8:31-34

The message is clear: God gave up His most precious Son Jesus, so that we would have life. In the face of this, how can we not rest confidently in Him? We know that we are not condemned, because Christ died and was raised. Therefore, if He is trustworthy in the greatest sacrifice to meet our greatest need, we should not doubt that He is trustworthy in everything – because he has also promised that for those who love God, all things work together for good.

No condemnation…all things working together for good…eternal life…peace with God. That’s the message of John 3:16 for those who trust in Christ. But, what about those who don’t believe? In verses 17-21, John continues to develop the thought began in verse 16 and answers this question for us.

God did not send Jesus to condemn the world, but to save it through Jesus…but in verse 18 we see that those who do not believe are condemned. Why? They are condemned because they have not believed in Jesus.

The verdict against them is this:

The light (that is, Jesus) has come into the world, and men have loved the darkness more than the light. Their sinful thoughts, desires, and deeds are comfortably hidden in the darkness of their hearts, deceiving their conscience that all is well. One of the effects of light is to show things for what they really are, and one of the effects of seeing Christ is that our thoughts, desires, and actions are exposed for what they really are – horrible, ugly sins. Those who don’t believe Christ are condemned because they prefer to remain in darkness rather than have their sins exposed for what they are.

We who believe in Christ welcome the light. Upon seeing the horror of our sin, we flee to Christ for mercy. As we begin to walk in the light, Christ begins to live through us. Now, the same light that exposed our sin, exposes our new life for what it is – the very work of God in us through Christ. Let us give thanks to God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” that he has shone in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2Cor 4:6). In his death and resurrection we find hope, and His light shines to guide our path, exposing our sin and leading us in paths of righteousness.

But also remember that the same Jesus who said, “I am the light of the world,” also said “you are the light of the world.” Therefore, let’s be conscious of letting Christ’s light shine out of us in such a way that when people see our love, compassion, and generosity, God gets the glory, not us. This not only includes our acts of love, but also the way we handle our sin and suffering. We should pray for the grace to recognize sin, and the strength to flee from it. If we sin against others, we should repent to them in a spirit of humility, knowing that not doing so would defame the name of Jesus. When wronged by others, we should be gracious, obeying Christ’s command to love our enemies, and we should seek to overcome evil with good. In suffering, we trust patiently in the Lord, knowing that are afflictions are preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. When others see our actions and hear our words, whether they praise us or persecute us, let it be because we faithfully represented Christ to them.

The Way of the Righteous - Psalm 1

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:30:00 +0000

Psalms 1

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.
The wicked are not so,
but are like chaff that the wind drives away.
Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;
for the LORD knows the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked will perish.

Very happy and full of joy is the man who:

**Doesn’t walk in the counsel of the wicked:
**Our walk concerns the action and direction of our lives. The happy man doesn’t heed the advice of the wicked and set his feet towards their ways (Prov. 1:15). The key here is whose advice he follows. He refuses to heed the counsel of the wicked, though their advice may seem tempting or even rational, because he knows and delights in the Word of God and sets his feet according to that instead. Does your advice come from the world of the ungodly, or from Christ? Are your views of money and relations shaped more by Fortune magazine and Cosmo, than the Bible? Is your direction set by the wisdom of a world enslaved by idolatry, or by the wisdom of the God? Happy is the man who forsakes the former and clings to the latter.
Doesn’t stand in the way of sinners:
Beyond our actions lie our dispositions. Though sinners may not be actively committing injustice or violence, they have a disposition towards sin. They have no concern for God, and haven’t seen any reason why they need to. They have “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25). The man who no longer stands in the way of sinners has a new outlook, and his yearning is for God. He has been born again. He is now justified before God and stands in the Way of the righteous (which is Christ – John 14:6; 1Cor. 6:11). He now sees God, and seeing Him, he longs for Him.
Doesn’t sit in the seat of scoffers:
The scoffers aren’t walking or standing, but sit and mock those who are (possibly both the righteous and the wicked) – They enjoy it when sinners fall into sin and ruin, and they mock the righteous in Christ. The scoffer sees the sinner struggle and does nothing to lift their burden. They see the righteous cry for mercy and laugh in derision. They pray, but their prayer is “’God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers…” (Luke 18:11). The man who doesn’t sit in their seat knows that he too has walked in wickedness and stood as a sinner, and that except for the grace and mercy continually bestowed to him in Christ, he would do so again. He would prefer to lift the sinners’ burdens (Matt. 11:28-30) and encourage the righteous rather than scoff at them.
Delights in the law of the Lord:
He delights in every precept and law of God and loves them. Though he stands condemned under the law, he delights that the Lord Jesus Christ has fulfilled the law, and rests in His righteousness. As Christ is the fulfillment of the law, it can be said that the man delights in Him and His commandments. His desire is for Christ, and his satisfaction is found in Him.
**Meditates on it day and night:
**Not the passive meditation of the eastern religions, but an active study and committing to memory. In the same manner that his delight is in the law, so is his meditation. He meditates on Christ as the Word of God day and night. Though he goes about the day, the man has the Word close to his heart and it is ever before him.

The man is joyful and happy because of these things, but how does he get there? Can I just decide to not walk in the ungodly way, not stand with the sinners, not sit with the scoffers, but instead delight in the law of God? No sooner than a leopard can change his spots (Jer. 13:23). Romans 3:10-18 gives us the reason – “No one seeks for God.” We all like sheep have gone astray. We’ve all exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the glory of created things. So how may we be like this man, and find happiness?

_“He is like a tree planted by the streams of water”
_ This man is like a tree, receiving its life from a stream of water. What is this water? How does the tree get planted by the water? We learn from Jesus that the tree is planted by God (Matt. 15:13; Isa. 60:21), and that the stream of water is the Holy Spirit flowing from God:

Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” John 4:13-14

Jesus expounds on His own teaching a little further on:

Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:38-39

Those who trust in Christ will receive the Holy Spirit, Who will flow out of their heart in a river of living water. The Spirit will well up in them to eternal life, and will overflow out of them to bring that life to others.

**“That yields its fruit in its season”
_** The tree planted by the water _will yield fruit, and we can be confident of it because it is the Holy Spirit Who is giving the tree life. In fact, it is through these fruits that we recognize a tree as having been properly planted and watered by the Holy Spirit:

And some fell into good soil and grew and yielded a hundredfold.” As he said these things, he called out, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.… As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience.” Luke 8:8, 15

By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. John 15:8

Elsewhere, our Lord shows us that our fruits are manifest in a large part by our words:

“For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.” Luke 6:43-45

We also see that the Spirit works fruit in us, and from it we shine as bright lights in the darkness:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23

“And its leaf does not wither”

Because our lives and our fruit are supplied by the Holy Spirit, we rest assured that “according to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time”(1 Peter 1:3-5). We see in this a picture of Eternal Security, or Perseverance of the Saints – namely, that God who planted the tree will water and grow it to fruition by the power of the Holy Spirit, not allowing its leaves to wither. This is the promise of our blessed Savior:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” John 10:27-30

“Whatever he does shall prosper” The man who abhors the counsel of the wicked, the way of sinners, and the seat of scoffers, and delights in Christ and His words can rest on this promise:

If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. John 15:7

This is the promise given for a saint who abides in Christ, and walks by the Spirit which gives him life. He asks and receives, because in everything he seeks to glorify God. The apostle James gives a solemn warning to those whose goal is to fulfill their worldly passions:

What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. James 4:1-4

They fight and covet for things they desire, but never think to ask for those things in prayer. So common it is for many to try and make their own way, rather than turning to the Creator and Sustainer of all things for help. Then, there are some who do ask, but they don’t receive because they’re asking to fulfill their worldly pleasures! James calls people that do this adulterers and adulteresses. They ask God to give them things that they can use them to be unfaithful to Him. As John Piper describes it, people who pray for fulfillment of their worldly lusts are “like a wife who asks her husband for $50, and when she gets it, she goes to her boyfriend and gives him the $50 so he will take her out and sleep with her. They make a cuckold of God.”

Rather, the heart of the man in Psalms 1 asks and receives because he asks according to God’s will, seeking His glory:

And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him. 1 John 5:14-15

Not only in asking and receiving does he prosper, but in doing as well. Much like Hezekiah:

And every work that he undertook in the service of the house of God and in accordance with the law and the commandments, seeking his God, he did with all his heart, and prospered. 2 Chronicles 31:21

The analogy of the tree is very strong and used throughout the scriptures. In Jeremiah, we find a very similar passage from the Lord, which yields some additional insight:

Thus says the LORD:
“Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength,
whose heart turns away from the LORD. He is like a shrub in the desert,
and shall not see any good come.
He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness,
in an uninhabited salt land.

_“Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD,
whose trust is the LORD.
He is like a tree planted by water,
that sends out its roots by the stream,
and does not fear when heat comes,
for its leaves remain green,
and is not anxious in the year of drought,
for it does not cease to bear fruit.”
Jeremiah 17:5-8
_

Of particular interest are the phrases “does not fear when heat comes” and “is not anxious in the year of drought.” In these verses we see the picture of various types of trials and sufferings that come upon him whose trust is in the Lord and that even during these times, “its leaves remain green” and “it does not cease to bear fruit.”

Picture for a moment a forest of trees, all green and healthy. Then comes a scorching heat that bears down on the trees and they all start to dry up and shrivel. Then a drought comes and they all die and begin to waste away. Now, in the middle of that scene of gloom and death, picture a lone tree, as green as a summer meadow, filled with fruit. Oh, how beautiful that tree is, and how brightly it shines in the darkness!

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. Romans 5:1-5

In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith–more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire–may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 1:6-7

Our Lord Jesus also shows some of the temptations that will threaten the trees:

And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched. And since they had no root, they withered away. Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them… When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. Matthew 13:4-7, 19-22

“The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.”

The wicked are compared to the shriveled trees, which are driven away when the wind blows. Jeremiah contrasts these men with the righteous. They “trust in man” and make flesh their strength. Their end is well known (Matt. 3:12; 7:19; 15:13)

“For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish”

The Lord knows and loves the way of the righteous as a Father knows a Son and loves Him. God loves the way of the righteous because God loves His Son, and all who follow that way shall live because that way is also life:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

The way of the ungodly is sin, death, and hell. These shall perish alongside the ungodly.

And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:13-15

Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Jude 1:24-25

Casting Your Cares on Him - 1 Peter 5:6-7

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:46:00 +0000

Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. 1 Peter 5:6-7

A few things to note:

1. The phrase “humble yourselves” is passive in the greek, with the sense of “be humbled” or “allow yourself to be humbled by God”

2. The clause “casting all your anxieties” is dependent to v.6 and explains the way in which we humble ourselves

3. The phrase “all your anxieties” is literally “the whole of your anxiety,” as in the totality of it

Our refusal to cast all of our concerns on God and be totally dependant on him is rooted in pride. We seek to be self-sufficient and do things of our own resources. We are humbled by casting all of our anxieties (concerns, cares, desires, fears) on him. The previous verse says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” When we are proud, God will often oppose us to humble us and bring us to the point of casting all of our cares on him, trusting that he cares for us. This is part of his work of conforming us to the image of his Son.

This page has a great in depth study on this verse:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=897

Rich Man

Sat, 01 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0000

As in the east the sun rises,
And in the west it sets,
So life is full of surprises,
And what’s off are all bets.

The rich man hoards his dough,
And then tragedy strikes.
Where will his money go
If he has no kids or wife?

He spent his whole life building wealth,
And gave no thought for his soul,
Or for that matter his health,
But in the end, he pays the toll.

Today

Sun, 11 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Where does one day end
And the next begin?
Is it when I fall asleep
And then wake up again?
Yet, I have stayed up all night
And gone to sleep in a new day.
Perhaps it is when the sun rises;
Maybe it begins that way.
Yet many a day has begun,
Long before the rising sun.
Perhaps it is at midnight
When the calendar moves forward.
Yet many nights have taken
Me past midnight into morning.
Is it at 6:00AM?
No, many days have begun earlier,
And some have ended later.
Perhaps there is no new day,
Just one long one.
But no, there’s as surely a yesterday,
As there is a today.
And there’s as surely a tomorrow,
…no, tomorrow’s not guaranteed.
So yesterday is merely today, tomorrow.
Or better yet,
Today is merely yesterday, tomorrow.
So when does it become tomorrow?
Today. One day ended Yesterday
And the next begins today.

And They Called His Name Jesus

Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0000

He was born in a manger.
There was no room at the inn.
His parents showed no anger,
For they knew it was Him.

He was raised by a carpenter.
Yet it was little known
That He had a much larger Mentor.
This they knew when He was grown.

He taught in the temples and fields.
He spoke as one having authority.
Not, as the people would yield,
Like the Scribes and Pharisees.

He healed the sick and the blind.
He once raised the dead from the tomb.
He fed over five thousand at one time.
Yet, the people thought, what more can He do?

He went as a lamb to the slaughter.
A reproach of men,
Forsaken even by His Father.
Who’d have known He’d purchased the cure for sin.

This humble man from Nazareth,
Lived His whole life to please us.
A heavenly city He established,
And they called His name JESUS.

Name above all Names

Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0000

We hear the name every day,
But few think of Him.
It’s on our lips when we pray,
But our thoughts do seem dim.

He is the great King of creation,
The very giver of light,
We have a special relation,
He helps me to sleep at night.

He is the origin of Love,
In nature His beauty is seen,
Yet we give more thought to a dove,
Than to this great King.

He suffered death for our sin,
But that wasn’t enough to please us.
And then He rose again,
Now we all know His name: Jesus

Psalm 1

Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Blessed is the man that walketh
Not in the ungodly’s counsel
Nor in the way of sinners standeth
Nor sitteth in the seat of scoundrels

He much enjoys other things
In the law of God he delights
Through the day holy hymns he sings
But on the law he meditates at night

And he shall be like a tree
Planted by the rivers of water
He once and for all be free
Bringing forth fruit from his Father

His leaf also shall not wither
And whatever he does will prosper
The wicked never reach the river
But suffer for the evil they’ve fostered

The way of the righteous the Lord knows
But the ungodly shall lose their life
God will cure the righteous of all woes
And they’ll forever reign with Christ

Psalm 143

Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0000

I cry out for Your grace and Your mercy,
O LORD, listen to my prayer,
In Your faithfulness and righteousness answer me,
And leave me not in despair,

Enter not into judgment with Your servant,
For You see through the holiest of eyes.
I know from Your righteous observance,
No living man shall be justified.

For sin has tormented my soul,
And iniquity has brought me down.
I’ve been made to dwell in the darkness of Sheol,
Like those long dead and in the ground.

My spirit is overwhelmed within me
And my heart is made a wasteland.
Of long ago days I have memory
I think of the mighty works of Your hand.

Like a land without water,
Or dry crops needing rain,
My soul thirsts for You Father,
I stretch out my hands to You in pain.

Answer me quickly, LORD, please,
My spirit is failing, I feel it.
Don’t hide Your face from my plea,
Lest I descend into the darkest pit.

Cause me to know Your love,
When I wake up every day.
For it is You that I trust in above,
Cause me to walk in the right way.

Deliver me from temptation and evil,
I hide underneath Your wings.
Teach me to do Your complete will.
For You are my one holy King.

For Your name’s sake, make me alive.
And of Your mercy spare me from sin.
Cut off the enemies with which I strive,
For I am Your servant and friend.

Psalm 23

Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0000

He is my Shepherd, I shall not want.
He has be lie in green pastures,
Leading me beside the water front.
My very soul He enraptures.

In paths of righteousness He leads me.
I walk through the valley of death,
Though I feel nothing because of Thee.
With Thy rod and staff I’m blessed.

In the presence of my enemies
You have prepared me a table.
With oil on my head You anoint me,
My cup runs over, and I’m able

To forever dwell in Heaven’s house.
Mercy and goodness follow me
From You, whom I cannot do without.
To you alone praise and glory.

The Sermon on the Mount

Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0000

What is that blessed mystery?
That holy Christianity?
Is it nothing but piety?
Or is there more that we don’t see?
I tell you, more than piety.
But nothing more than what we see.

Not with our eyes, but with our heart
We may with ease set it apart
From all other pious arts.
That one for whom the waters part,
He has told us from Whom Thou art.
Unto your words we all will hark,

The herald as well. Angels sing,
Glory unto God’s Holy King.
The wedding bells finally ring,
When we’re taken under His wing.
Oh, that we could hear Him speaking
Words that are of everlasting.

Blessed are the poor in spirit
For already they are near it.
Far from the other end, the pit,
In His kingdom the righteous sit.
Their know their place at their end wits’
They cannot save themselves, they’ve quit.

Blessed are the merciful, yes.
He gives them comfort and will bless
Them for their acts to those who’re less.
Those without it are in a mess,
Judgement without mercy, nothing less.
This is the truth, I must confess.

Blessed are they that mourn today,
The comfort they find will repay
For their sorrow along the way.
They see their sin and then they say,
Lord we are sinners, shall we stay?
This is their sorrow for these days.

Blessed are the meek, I swear it.
The whole earth they shall inherit.
The Lord’s righteousness they wear it
As their own with no real merit.
These are humble one’s, not careless
To others they show much patience.

Blessed be they who hunger and thirst
After righteousness, and that first.
They always feel that they’re the worst,
Always looking to lift the curse,
The effects of sin which they nurse.
They shall be filled and not get worse.

Blessed are those who’re pure in heart.
To them alone Thou will impart
The glory of the King Thou art.
Those with clean hands, they are smart.
They shall see God, not just in part.
Toward His throne they all will dart.

Blessed are those who make the peace.
Not just the kind between two teams,
But that which will heal the breach
Between God and man found in each.
This is the gospel that they preach.
The children of God they shall be.

The salt of the earth we all are.
A light shining from off afar.
Though the world know not who we are,
We tell them of their sin, and jar
Their mind to see that they are marred
With guilt from having evil hearts.

The law and the prophets that are past,
He did not end but made them last
Though the heavens and earth shall pass,
His words and the Law shall hold fast.
To ignore this would be quite crass,
We should obey His words en masse.

You heard before, “Thou shalt not kill.”
He tells you now, whoever will
Be angry with his brother still,
Or is holding unjust ill-will,
Shall suffer punishment until,
They have paid the entire bill.

“Do not commit adultery.”
If a pretty woman you see
At look at her sexually,
You shall be considered guilty
Of committing adultery.
This He states so very clearly.

Divorce is not to be allowed,
Except for fornication now.
How sacred is the wedding vow,
It cannot just be disallowed.
Husband and wife must work it out,
It can be avoided somehow.

Again they said in time of old,
Every oath you should uphold.
The Lord Himself has come and told
Us not to swear or be so bold,
As to promise things we don’t know.
Say “Yes” for yes, and “No” for no.

They said, Tooth for tooth, eye for eye.
A new command will purify
Us of our evil, by and by.
Resist not evil, don’t ask why.
Suffer all wrong, and testify.
The same as Jesus when He died.

Give to those who ask for or need.
Love both neighbor and enemy;
Pray for those who despitefully
Use you. Always do the good deed.
Live your life with much charity.
As God is perfect, you should be.

When you do works of charity,
Try not to let everyone see.
This men do that they may glory
In their own works of piety.
Still do good works, just secretly.
God will reward you openly.

Silence

Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0000

You can barely hear a whisper,
The moments we’re together.
There’s silence but it’s not bitter,
As we live life under heaven.

No sound is made, but much is said.
Quieter than two hearts beating,
So quiet you’d think we were dead.
Yet inside there is much thinking.

Two people with no need to talk,
Can face every problem head-on.
If we wanted to take a walk,
It’d be as silent when we’re gone.

But we’d still be together,
And that’s what really matters.
It beats talking of the weather,
Or other meaningless chatter.

Stress

Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Some call it acute anxiety disorder,
But even with a pretty border
It’s nothing more than stress.
Either way it’s one giant mess.

I can’t sleep more than three hours a night.
When I’m awake, with myself I always fight.
Maybe I’ve got a lot on my mind, I don’t know.
One thing’s for sure, this has got to go.

I miss those quiet peaceful nights,
Lying in bed without the lights.
I could fall asleep without a second thought.
Now, if they sold sleep it’d be the first thing I bought.

There’s not a lot of stress in my life,
I don’t have kids or a nagging wife.
It may be related to my spiritual position,
Lately I haven’t done much with religion.

I miss my God and my times of prayer,
I miss always knowing that He’ll be there.
Do you think if I ask, my needs He’ll supply?
I hope so, cause I’m going to give it a try.

The Bright Day

Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Look,

The Sun is

Shining through

A slightly open door.

I can see the bright light

Glaring on the wooden floor.

I wish that some day we

All might ably see

That great sight

Made for us

By Thee

Sailor

Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0000

I will sail to the end of the world
I don’t care if I lose my life
I will not keep my sails furled
Say goodbye to my kids and wife

I will sail to the end of the earth
I don’t care if I fall off the edge
I’ve wanted to do it since birth
So very few have had this privilege

I will sail to the end of time
I don’t care how long it takes
You may think I’m out of my mind
But I’d like to sail until day breaks

I will sail until the day I die
It doesn’t matter where I’m going
To sail could mean to walk or fly
But the point is I’m sailing, not rowing.

Remember

Fri, 01 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Every word brings a though to mind,
Some are bad and some are fine.
These are memories that we keep.
They often come out when we sleep.

The greatest gift a man can have
Is a memory not gone bad.
It holds places we’ve gone and people we’ve seen.
We use it to dream of what we’ll be.

I went to Florida one, it was nice,
And with my memory, I go twice.
If I see a beautiful face,
I’ll know her if we meet some place.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg
Of the purpose memory serves.
I can remember sights and sounds,
Or how I felt that night downtown.

My memory holds the whole earth,
Everything I’ve know except birth.
Take advantage while you have it,
Lest one day forgetfulness grab it.

Robert Browning

Fri, 01 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0000

There are moments in life
When we’re at ease.
At other times,
We can’t remember these.
The day at the lake,
Or that walk in the park,
That time we sat back,
And heard the dogs bark.

These are the moments,
When life is most sweet.
Yet few will relax
And enjoy the treat.
Hustle and bustle,
The call of the American.
We’re all in a hurry –
Remind me, where again?

If we’d all look around,
And enjoy the course,
Life wouldn’t be so hard,
And there’d be a lot fewer wars.
When you start to get stressed,
You’re bones out of joint,
Just ask yourself this,
What is really the point?

Where are you going,
On this road of life?
Are you running straight through,
Or enjoying the sights?
Robert Brownings words help,
When life’s in a swirl:
“God’s in His heaven –
All’s right with the world.”

Faithful Palabras

Psalm 5

Psalm 6

Live Not By Lies

Thanksgiving

Lewis, That Hideous Strength

Highlights

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 16

Chapter 17

Lewis, Perelandra

Highlights

Paul and the Resurrection of Israel

Key Themes

Common Knowledge in Pauline Letters

Modern Interpretations of Paul’s Message

Defining Israel

Jews vs. Israelites

Significance of the Exile

Paul’s Approach to the Torah and New Covenant

Paul’s Inclusive Message

Exile and Death

Transformative Justification

Israel and the Nations

Role of the Messiah

Final Restoration

Notes and Quotes

Preface

Introduction: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites

1 - The God of Jews Only?

2 - Paul and the Israel Problem

3 - The Israel Problem and the Gentiles

4 - Salvation through Justification: Jews and Gentiles Alike

5 - “Not My People”: Israel’s Infidelity and God’s Fidelity

6 - God’s Justice and the End of the Torah

7 - The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation

8 - The End of the Matter

Mansfield Park

James 5:13-20 - Persevering in Prayer

Suffering

Smiling

Sick

Sinning

Elijah

Assumptions/Declarations in this passage

Straying

Mother's Day

Crouch, The Life We're Looking For

Chapter 1 - What we thought we wanted: The loneliness of a personalized world

Chapter 2 - Heart, Soul, Mind, Strength: What we’ve forgotten about being a person

Chapter 3 - The superpower zone: How we trade personal growth for effortless power

Chapter 4 - Modern Magic: The ancient roots of our Tech Obsession

Chapter 5 - Money and Mammon: How Impersonal Power Rules Our World

Chapter 6 - Boring Robots: Why the next tech revolution will succeed (and fail)

Chapter 7 - Intermission: The Body of the Messiah in the Emperor’s Court

Chapter 8 - Existing the Empire: Redemptive Moves for an Impersonal Age

Chapter 9 - From Devices to Instruments: Truly Personal Technology

Chapter 10 - From Family to Household: Living Together as Persons

Chapter 11 - From Charmed to Blessed: The Community of the Unuseful

Application

Liberals and Conservatives

Conservatives

Liberals

References

Smith, How to Inhabit Time

Introduction