According to John Stott, Charles Simeon emphasized three things which he printed in capital letters in the preface to his works:
The Author...would wish his work to be brought to this test - Does it uniformly tend
TO HUMBLE THE SINNER?
TO EXALT THE SAVIOR?
TO PROMOTE HOLINESS?
If in any one instance it loses sight of any of these points, let it be condemned without mercy. (source)
When Israel camp on their way to the promised land, the tent of meeting is pitched in the centre of the camp with the tribes camped round the outside. The Levites then camp according to their clans in different groups surrounding the tent, and so protecting the rest of the people.
'The people of Israel shall pitch their tents by their companies, each man in his own camp and each man by his own standard. But the Levites shall camp around the tabernacle of the testimony, so that there may be no wrath on the congregation of the people of Israel. And the Levites shall keep guard over the tabernacle of the testimony.' (1:52f)
Further Aaron and his sons 'protect the people of Israel' by 'guarding the sanctuary itself' (3:38). The holiness of God was a fearsome thing. The tent of meeting was a sign of God's closeness to his people, but the rituals surrounding it showed that he was still separate from them. Three levels of priesthood (at least) are clear: the sons of Aaron; the Levites; the people as a whole. The OT teaches the terrible truth that not one of these levels is uncorrupted and ultimately successful in their priestly role (the sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, demonstrate that just in chapter 3).
As NT Christians we know neither humanity's sin, nor God's awesome holiness, has changed (although we often forget). But Christ has demolished the curtains, and the separation between God and man, and brought God into the midst not just of a camp but of our hearts. He has done this not by compromising on God's holiness but by being the perfect priest, and the perfect priestly nation. He did everything Israel and the Levitical priesthood could not.
For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.' (Heb 7:23ff)
Finally, this high priest makes us to be the new priestly nation (1 Pet 2:9), not just by cleansing us either, but by making us perfect as he is perfect (Consider a search for the word perfect in Hebrews).
So, will we, by the power of God, fulfil our calling to intercede for the world?
Crazy stuff our faith, no wonder it is foolishness to the world.
PS If you are feeling scholarly try David Peterson's Hebrews and Perfection. Not that I have, although I know where I can borrow a copy
The sermon at Church today was on the parable of the shrewd manager. By God's grace I had a couple of thoughts.
Lord, show me more of how you have model self-giving to me, and by your Holy Spirit my I live in a similar way.
I have just started Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind by PT Forsyth. He certainly is an interesting fellow, and a different writer to what I expected. As promised in the forward as well he is very quotable. Here are some things that have stood out from what I have read so far:
But the preacher who tries to follow this advice will find himself in one great difficulty. The Bible may be his text book, but it has ceased to be the text book of his audience. The Bible is not read by the Christian, or even by the churchgoing public, as a means of grace greater even than churchgoing. Our people, as a rule, do not read the Bible, in any sense which makes its language more familiar and dear to them than the language of the novel or the press. And I will go so far as to confess that one of the chief miscalculations I have made in the course of my own ministerial career has been to speak to congregations as if they did know and use the Bible. I was bred where it was well known and loved, and I have spent my ministerial life where it is less so. And it has taken me so long to realize the fact that I still find it difficult to adjust myself to it. I am long accustomed to being called obscure by many whose mental habits and interests are only literary, who have felt but a languid interest in the final questions of the soul as the New Testament stirs them, who treat sin as but lapse, God’s grace as if it were but love, and His love as if it were but paternal kindness. At first I believed I was obscure, and I took pains to be short in the sentence and unadorned in style. But I found my critics still puzzled. And I have come to think the obscurity is at least in some degree due to the fact that while I am attracted by such matters beyond all else, I am often dealing with people to whom they are not only strange but irritating. They have applied to religion what William Morris applied to life, "Love is enough." They have given a Christian varnish to what in him was mainly pagan, but they have not really stepped out of his natural world. They have risen to locate the affections in God; but they have not realized faith as the inroad, the uprise in us of a totally new world, Christianity as a new creation, and the new life as a new birth. Grace for them is only love exercised on the divine scale, not in the divine style, not under the conditions of holiness and sin. They read in the heart more than in the Bible. (p.21)
The Reformation was not a reformation of theology, but of faith. It is remarkable how little of the theology it changed in its first stage. It was the renewed action, not of truth, but of grace. It was the greatest of evangelical revivals. That is why it re-discovered the Bible. It was not the Bible that lighted up grace for Luther, but grace to his needy soul lighted up the Bible. Biblical preaching preaches the Gospel and uses the Bible, it does not preach the Bible and use the Gospel. (p.23)
PS If you can't buy the book, it's all online with many of his other works linked to here (on the right sidebar). But if you are like me you may find his prophetic, rhetorical style frustrating as well as enlivening
And all free...
Time to charge up your mp3 player.
Richard Gaffin Jr says:
The reformation tradition has clearly grasped, as Paul teaches the eschatological “not yet” of our sanctification, penultimately at death and climactically at Christ’s return, and that our being perfectly conformed to the image of Christ is, until his return and the resurrection of the body, still future. It has maintained that truth more or less consistently, even though at times some have been drawn away, for example, toward various cheap perfectionisms and easy “victorious life” positions.
But, we may ask, has the Reformation grasped as clearly the “resurrection,” eschatological “already” of our sanctification? For instance, as we consider preaching and teaching in our traditions, how many Christians understand that the Holy Spirit presently at work in them is nothing less than resurrection power, that the Spirit, through whom God “will give life to your mortal bodies,” is “his Spirit who dwells in you” (Rom 8:11)? How many believers grasp that the Holy Spirit indwelling them is an eschatological power, that, in terms of the metaphors Paul uses, he in his activity in the church is an actual “down payment” on our eschatological inheritance (2 Cor 1:22, 5:5; Eph 1:14), the “firstfruits” of the full “harvest” of his eschatological working (Rom 8:23)? How many appreciate that Christ himself, as “life-giving Spirit” (1 Cor 15:45), is present and at work in our lives in his resurrection power?
[…]
In the matter of sanctification, it seems to me, we must confront a tendency, at least practical and, my impression is, pervasive, within churches of the Reformation to view the gospel and salvation in its outcome almost exclusively in terms of justification. Recall, for instance, the statement of our conference speaker quoted in the previous chapter, to the effect that the gospel is only about what Christ has done “for us” and apparently does not include his work, through the Spirit, “in us”.
The effect of this outlook, whether or not intended, is that sanctification tends to be seen as the response of the believer to salvation, defined in terms of justification. Sanctification is viewed as an expression of gratitude from our side for our justification and the free forgiveness of our sins, usually with the accent on the imperfection and inadequacy of such expressions of gratitude. Sometimes there is even the suggestion that while sanctification is highly desirable, and its lack certainly unbecoming and inappropriate, it is not really necessary in the life of the believer, not really integral to our salvation and an essential part of what it means to be saved from sin. The attitude we may have – at least this is the way it comes across – is something like, “If Jesus did that for you, died that your sins might be forgiven, shouldn’t you at least do this for him, try to please him?”
With such a construction justification and sanctification are pulled apart; the former is what God does, the latter what we do, and do so inadequately. At worst, this outlook tends to devolve into a deadening moralism.
(pp. 75-76, By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, Carlisle:Paternoster)
Both Mark Horne and Mark Lauterbach have posted some encouraging God-centred posts coming from different angles.
Richard Gaffin Jr says:
God in his specific identity as the Father raises Jesus; correlatively, Jesus is passive in his resurrection. This viewpoint is maintained consistently by Paul, without exception, as far as I can see. Nowhere does he say that Christ was active in his resurrection, much less that he raised himself. Paul does not teach that Christ “rose” from the dead, but that he “was raised.”
[…]
The theological significance of this stress plainly lies in what we have seen is the controlling unity there is between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of believers. Christ’s passivity in his resurrection reflects his identification and solidarity with believers in being raised from the dead. For Paul, not in conflict with but other than the way it is often understood, the resurrection is not the especially evident display and powerful proof of Christ’s, divinity, but rather the vindication of the incarnate [my italics] Christ in his suffering and obedience unto death,, and, with that, the powerful transformation of him in his humanity.
[…]
Some comment should be made her on the relationship of Paul’s invariable emphasis on the passivity of Jesus in his resurrection to Jesus’ own statements elsewhere suggesting or affirming that he actively rose from the dead [a footnote lists the examples of Jon 2:19 and 10:17-18] […] Paul looks at the resurrection in terms of the Adamic identity of Jesus and the genuine humanity he shares with believers, while Jesus in John’s Gospel affirms what is also true, because of the deity he shares with the Father in his unique identity and relationship as the Son.
(pp. 65-67, By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, Carlisle:Paternoster)
Two great (and brief) posts in a row:
All followed up by a post I just don't understand
Typical Peter Leithart.
I have been prompted to think a great deal about God's judgment recently, and Leithart's follow-up post to the one mentioned above on imprecatory prayers gives more detailed application and is very helpful, as is the post of Jim he points to.
I am convinced this is a thinking on these things is no mere accademic activity but gives glory to our Father. It cuts deep but we must never move away from God's hatred of sin (cf. also Adrian Warnock's post).
I found these passages quite difficult, and the observations and thoughts in this post are even more incomplete, tentative, and provisional than usual. However, I noticed that these two chapters have at least two things in common.
David recognises Saul as anointed by God and refuses to kill him when encouraged to by his men. He does this despite the risk this involves with his life by letting the man hunting him to escape. He does this despite the personal reward that beckons, as the man anointed to be king next.
Saul, in an unusual moment of clarity, recognises David as anointed by God to be king next. This must not have come easy as it involves confessing that his son will not be, and his legacy will be lost.
Nabal lives up to his name and foolishly can only see David for what he is at the moment, a servant of himself seemingly claiming a title and honours he doesn’t deserve.
God’s anointed one, his chosen one, is not always recognised by everyone. It was true of David, it was true of Jesus, and it is true of the Church. The author of Samuel may consider that Nabal was a very foolish man, but his actions are very understandable. Although the world may always be looking for ‘a sign’ God does not always provide one (though sometimes he does) and further holds us accountable when we do not recognise the truth with or without one. Countless times I have been told this is unfair of God, but God responds that the truth is clear if our heart is not hardened.
David refuses to kill Saul because, as Saul is anointed by God, to do so would be to rebel against YHWH. But this does not mean that he does not think Saul should be killed. After the incident he exclaims to Saul
May the Lord judge between me and you, may the Lord avenge me against you, but my hand shall not be against you. As the proverb of the ancients says, ‘Out of the wicked comes wickedness.’ But my hand shall not be against you. After whom has the king of Israel come out? After whom do you pursue? After a dead dog! After a flea! May the Lord therefore be judge and give sentence between me and you, and see to it and plead my cause and deliver me from your hand.” (vv. 12-15)
It is for God and God alone to bring about his purposes if it involves the death of another. For chapter 25 shows that it is not just his anointed that David is unwilling to murder.
Nabal in insulting David is also insulting God, and David is riled by Nabal’s arrogance. However he is restrained by a wise Abigail who reminds him that God will achieve his own purposes, and in this way David will be prevented from bloodguilt. Sure enough, ten days later Nabal is dead.
YHWH has again opened up himself to the charge that he is unrighteous, and unreasonable. How can God cause the death of Nabal, and later Saul, and yet not be tainted by the bloodguilt that David would have incurred?
I don’t have a complete answer to this question.
The bible makes it clear that both Saul and Nabal received just recompense for evil they had committed. It is also clear that there is no fairer judge that YHWH, and no one else with the right to take that place for themselves.
The focus of this passage is not on these apologetic questions – important as they are – but on God himself. It is concerned with God’s power and his purposes, and recognising these and acting on them.
Pray the world recognises Jesus Christ (trans ‘anointed one’) for who he is, and look toward his coming for the completion of his purposes of judgment and blessing.
Richard Gaffin Jr says:
[…]“seek after what you already have, because you already have it.”
In the study of Paul in the modern period this pattern of teaching has been the object of a fair amount of discussion and is often referred to as the “the problem of indictive and imperative in Paul”. While this teaching certain [sic] challenges the church, it is not ultimately problematic and so might better be referred to as the pattern or phenomenon of indicative and imperative in Paul. In addition to Colossians 3:1-4, the following passages belong to this pattern:
Galatians 5:25: “If we live in the Spirit, let us walk in the Spirit,” virtually equivalent to, “If we live in the Spirit let us live in the Spirit.”
Galatians 5:1: “Christ has set us free for freedom, stand firm and don’t be burdened again with a yoke of slavery.” Equivalent in its elemental thrust to, “you are free, therefore be free.”
Ephesians 5:8: “But now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light.”
1 Corinthians 5:7: “Get rid of the old leaven that you may become a new batch of dough [= “become unleavened”], even as you become unleavened.”
Galatians 3:27: the indicative, believers “have put off the old man and put on the new”; Ephesians 4:22-24, on the most likely reading: the imperative, they are to “put off the old and put on the new.”
Romans 6:2: the indicative, “you have died to sin”, verse 12 the imperative, “do not let sin reign in your mortal body.”
[…]
Paul, we may observe, never writes in the imperative without first writing , at least implicitly, in the indicative. That is so because he knows all too well, better than some subsequent preachers, that “it does no good to beat a dead horse” – which is exactly what the congregation is apart from Christ, apart from who they are and what they have in him.
(pp. 69-72, By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, Carlisle:Paternoster)
