The Christ Files

I thought a few people may be interested in this new TV series from John Dickson (Australian evangelist). He's written a lot of books which include the wonderfully titled (and very good) If I were God—I'd make myself clearer... (available from The Good Book Co).

Anyway he has lined up an incredible list of the best of the best of sensible scholars out there to interview, so hopefully it will be pretty good and will be shown in the UK soon. You can view a whole load of video clips on the website: www.thechristfiles.com.au. My favourite bit has to be James Charlesworth on the differences between Qumran and Jesus. Here is the blurb:

The Christ Files is a full-scale historical documentary based on the book of the same name by Dr. John Dickson, Director of the Centre for Public Christianity and Honorary Associate of the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Australia.

Filmed in seven countries the documentary reveals the earliest and most important manuscript evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, including the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, the apostle Paul and the controversial Gnostic Gospels.

Neither a work of fanciful scepticism nor of Christian propaganda The Christ Files provides viewers with a front row seat to the facts behind Western civilisation’s most influential story.

Interviews with twelve of the most prominent scholars and historians and access to some of Israel’s most important archaeological sites give this documentary a unique authority.

(Hat tip to Michael Bird).

The Table of Nations: another side of the story

Dave Bish has just written a great post about the seep and recurring problem with humanity as told through the genealogies of the bible, particularly the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.

Anyway, this encouraged me to take up and read (as Dave Bish's blog has a habit of doing) and I felt like sharing a few random, and more positive, observations on Genesis 9-11.

I was just listening to some lectures by Bruce Waltke the other day. He observes that is the Table of Nations seems to be in the wrong place chronologically. According to Genesis 11 (part of) the reason for the dispersing of people and the different nations that result is the sin making a name for themselves. However by placing the Table of Nations before that Moses seems to God's call to 'be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth' (Genesis 9:1; 7). It is blessing and a reminder that Noah is a new Adam and the world has a new start.

Of course before we get going sin has creeped in again with Ham's dishonour towards his father in drawing attention to his naked father (unlike Dave Bish I'm not so sure Noah sinned as Ham is the one who is blamed). This leads to the cursing of Ham and the blessing of Shem and Japheth. However it is notable that the blessings of the brothers is not the same.

"Blessed be the LORD [YHWH], the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant." (9:26-27)

YHWH was the covenant name of God, the name that showed his special relationship to his people. Shem and Japheth both receive blessings but Noah gives a greater blessing to Shem by saying that God will be with his line.

This blessing is not just for Shem but for his decendents and the Hebrews in particular (Note the promanence brought to Eber, who gave his name to the Hebrews, in Genesis 10:21). And this is how we should make this passage ours today, for we are the children of Abraham (Romans 9:7) if by faith we unite ourselves with the one who was physically his child.

Nevertheless this blessing does not come in a straightforward way. Dave Bish can see the many examples of sin in genealogies. For me in Genesis this is shown as much as anything by the declining life spans of the people (see Genesis 11). As the author of Hebrews points out even Abraham who YHWH was especially close to still did not see much blessing and lived in tents hoping for something better (Hebrews 11:9). His 175 years was less than his father, and in the grand scheme it was not long before he fell under the curse of death.

Perhaps though in Genesis 7-11 we also see how God will bless his people when Sin and it's consequences reigns on the earth. In Genesis 7-9 God seems to be destroying the world to recreate it. The trouble is he doesn't complete the destruction as Noah and his family bring the pollution into the new world. In Genesis 11 God shows his determination to again bless the world despite the sins of humanity. He judges the world at Babel in order to continue the filling of earth he promised/commanded Noah, his mercy wins through again.

Peter and Paul recognised that this pattern of God blessing his covenant people, and judging the world to recreate it, reached its climax in Jesus Christ the seed of Abraham. God was merciful in the flood and held back his anger, as he had been merciful to Adam, Eve and Cain. On Jesus though the Father would pour out the full judgment on sin (cf Rom 3:25), but also bring to fulfilment the promise to his covenant people in Jesus' resurrection life. And this can be ours too. Not by birth into a line of promise, but by rebirth following death in baptism (Romans 6; likened to the flood in 1 Peter 3:18-22).

Pickings from the blogosphere

It's been a while since I did this.

• Ruth the Moabitess Absolutely brilliant stuff from Peter Leithart. It takes just 30secs to read but it is taking a long time to think about.
• Luther vs. Zwingli on the Lords Supper by Trevin Wax. A good summary of the Marburg Colloquy. Trevin Wax sees the main issue to be Christology (Mike Reeves agrees in these lectures) although Martin Greschat thinks it was how God communes with us (through external means such as the Words and Sacraments, or more directly). It's all so confusing.
• Read Gordon Cheng's comments on Tim Keller's apologetics amidst the comments on Tim Challies blog and then read Time Keller respond here. Then leave some time to do some serious thinking about how you present the Gospel.

2 questions

1. What shall we do with the sudden declaring of all foods clean in the New Covenant? That's what I am thinking about at the moment as my Bible reading plan takes me through Leviticus (when I bother to follow it). And what does that teach us about the Gospel? Incidentally I am a little sceptical of the use of David Field's word studying in Romans just because I think uncleanness is a really important. How can we accept that because the word 'law' does not appear after Romans 13:10 that we don't have to fit Romans 14 (on vegetables) into our reasoning.
2. What did Calvin base the structure of his 1559 Institutes on? The Creed (as Mike Reeves in his great talks on Calvin suggests along with others such as TF Torrance) or Romans (as JI Packer says)? Or is this just the universal structure of great theology, seeing as it also appears quite Trinitarian? But most important of all... am I just too much of geek because these sorts of things nag at me?

Anyhow, I am so rushed of my feet this week that is the best I can manage for a post. Sorry.

Structure

Ephesians is often treated as a pure type example of the Pauline method that "the indicative precedes the imperative."

But what Paul does first is pray. (Mark Horne)

Sorry for my continued absence.

Calvin the evangelist

UCCF's Theology Network is up and running. Lots for me to enjoy exploring in coming weeks.

Interestingly part of the inspiration for setting it up seems to be John Calvin's evangelistic work (sadly much ignored usually):

In 1555, based in Geneva, John Calvin established a top secret programme for the evangelisation of his native France. Using an underground network, with safe houses and hiding places, he slipped agents of the gospel across the border into France to plant new (sometimes literally) underground churches. Its success was astounding: the evangelical faith exploded in both numbers and influence in France. More than 10% of the entire population became Protestant, including something like a third of the nobility. Geneva became a nerve-centre for world evangelisation as missionaries were dispatched from Geneva to Poland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Italy, and even South America. [read more]

This reminded me of something else I had recently read about his few years in Strasbourg at an earlier time:

He placed great importance on fostering the independence of individual members, on kindling and promoting faith in each of them, and on having them assume their individual responsibility for the congregation. Intensive Bible study and a strict church discipline were the means he used to reach these goals. Calvin also succeeded in winning back a remarkable number of Anabaptists to the Protestant fold. It is no coincidence that he entered his name in the membership list of the tailors' guild on July 29, 1539 - a guild known for the many Anabaptists and their sympathizers in its midst. The woman whom Calvin married in Strasbourg, Idelette de Bure, was the wido of an Anabaptist he himself had converted.

(pp. 147f; Greschat, Martin; Martin Bucer: A reformer and his Times)

Of course not everyone might agree that the Anabaptists needed converting :)

Protestantism and pluralism

The Protestantism of the reformers is different from contemporary Christianity in many ways. It is particularly different from Evangelicalism surrounding the issue of pluralism.

1. Exclusive where we are inclusive

The term Protestant comes from the Protestation at Speyer. This was a protest by the Protestant princes at the Emperor's insistence that the Mass be permitted in all the territories of the Holy Roman Empire. The protest was not directly at the denial of the rights of the evangelicals to worship but at the idea that two rites (evangelical and Roman) may be permitted in the same region. It was inconceivable to them that they Christian princes could allow worship that denied the Gospel (i.e. the Mass). The truth was universal and pluralism cannot be permitted if a prince has the power to prevent it.

This is clearly different to the view of almost everyone today, whether Christian or not. Freedom of religion is one of the most basic rights of citizens in the West. Interestingly the first emergence of this idea in England was in Cromwell's (Puritan) Commenwealth.

2. Inclusive where we are exclusive

The other thing that is striking as a twenty-first century Christian reading the Reformers is that they were not separatists.

Martin Luther as late as 1920 presents his book The Freedom of a Christian to the pope appealing to him to preach the teachings of the Reformation! Martin Luther, nor any of the Reformers that I can tell, felt compelled to leave the Roman Catholic church. Rather they considered that the Church of Rome left them and the teaching of the Early Church. At least that was how it was understood by the Protestants. I think in this the Reformers paralleled Paul's practice in mission. He started in the Synagogues time after time and usually only started preaching apart from them when they had ejected him.

If the church is ever in the news today it is because of new threats of divisions and threatened separation. When considering the debate within Anglicanism today, none of the Reformers would act like some (but not all) of their supposed followers do today. They threaten to split from the Church unless the bible is obeyed by the authorities within the Church. The Reformers trusted the Word to do it's work, and as long as they weren't actually prevented from preaching that Word they looked forward to the renewal of the fallen Church of which they were a part.

Interestingly the first major separations from the Church of England were by (some) Puritans.

Ooo, I have so much more to say about ecumenicalism (e.g. what we can learn from the Donatists, Justification by faith as an ecumenical doctrine, the possibilities for evangelism and church discipline) but it is probably not worth saying.

In the end...

I don't know whether modern day evangelicals are more in the right than the first evangelicals but one thing is for sure 'the past is another country'.