What I'm up to

You are probably all very happy that things have gone quiet on this blog recently. Unfortunately I am busy at work at the moment and my law studies have restarted. This means I'll have less time to read, and blog, than God has graciously given me over the last few months.

However, I thought I'd let you know that I have decided after some deliberations to give the Puritans a second chance. I read a handful of books several years ago but could not understand what all the fuss was about. So I am joining the 2008 Puritan Reading Challenge, and going to try and get through 12 short Puritan books in 2008. Perhaps I'll give up half way through, but we'll see.

In preparation my commute has been to the sound of JI Packer's seriously English introductory lectures from 1988. Interestingly he relates how he had been trying to get a publisher to publish Richard Baxter's Christian Directory, which was one of just two books written by Puritans which was not occasional or based on sermons, and was actually designed to stand the test of time. The Banner of Truth apparently did not judge it sound enough! However it seems that he finally did manage to get someone to publish it in 1997.

On a more serious note, Packer makes a convincing case for understanding the Puritan movement as a revivalistic movement, which sheds a different light on things.

Meanwhile I'm also finding Lutheranism a strange and exciting new world of theology. The English-speaking evangelicalism that I know has always looked to the Reformed when it has got serious about theology. This seems clearest in that when people identify themselves as 'Reformed' in England they usually mean 'not Arminian', when of course the Arminians were 'Reformed' as well. Reading Lutheran theology I feel God confronting me, and interacting with me, in a way I have not felt since reading Calvin for the first time. Still I am not sure that I can agree with most of what distinguishes Lutheran from Reformed when it actually comes down to brass tacks. Nevertheless I can see the prophetic power that it must have had in the sixteenth century and still has now.

All very exciting but lots to do. Got to go.

Reformers on the run

One thing that has struck me reading about the history of the Reformation is how almost every major Protestant figure seems to have had to leave their homes at one point or another. These include: Luther, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Calvin, Bucer, Carlstadt, Osiander and Knox. I don't think Zwingli, Cramner, Ridley and Latimer had to leave there homes but they all got killed in one way or another.

This was no ivory tower dispute.

We have to be thankful for their love of God.

Sources of free UK Christian MP3s

There are now a whole host of MP3s of talks on the internet, but I think a lot of great UK resources are missed because American's get more publicity. So I thought I'd list a few resources I have found.

• @ the castle
• bethinking.org (UCCF's apologetics site)
• UCCF
• European Leadership Forum
• Oak Hill College
• The Christian Institute
• The Proclamation Trust
• East Anglia Gospel Partnership
• Yorkshire Gospel Partnership
• The North West Partnership
• The Theologian
• The Evangelists Conference
• The Northern Men's Convention
• The Northern Women's Convention
• The Fulwood Conference

I've restricted the selections so that I have not included individual churches, it is also quite biased to the conservative Evangelical side of the spectrum.

Any suggestions welcome. This is a work in progress.

Law and Gospel

Here is the heart of the distinction between law and gospel-not a formal division of God's word into commands and promises, or between Old Testament and New, but the alien and proper work of God. This distinction formed the basis of Luther's revolutionary theology of the cross. God's word works death and life on us (that is, law and gospel), putting to death the old and bringing to life the new.

(my emphasis, '"PEACE, PEACE ... CROSS, CROSS": Reflections on how Martin Luther relates the theology of the cross to suffering' by Timothy J Wengert, Theology Today, Jul 2002)

It is difficult to get my head around the Lutheran teaching on Law and Gospel. I think these two sentences have been the most helpful in making it clear.

Theology of the Cross

This reflection on Martin Luther's theology of the cross begins with a deceptively simple question: Does a theology of the cross bless suffering? Final answer: No. This lack of equivocation arises, not only from knowledge of the historical record in general and Luther's writings in particular, but also from experience. Eleven months after receiving an invitation to address this topic for a Lutheran convocation of teaching theologians, my wife of twenty-six years was diagnosed with terminal cancer. If experience truly makes a theologian, then this experience makes unmistakably clear that a theology of the cross blesses nothing [...]

Does a theology of the cross bless suffering? Even after agreeing to speak of the theology of the cross, the sentence still does not make sense. Quite the reverse! It serves up the single greatest temptation to sin that any theologian faces: imagining that what he or she does-theology-actually accomplishes anything so grand. No theology of any kind ever blesses. God blesses; the Crucified One blesses. A theology of the cross can make no such claim. However often theologians agree that they are dealing with second-order discourse in theology, the temptation still lurks to make that discourse worth something before God. Indeed, if Genesis 3 has anything to say to this day and age, it is that human beings are always tempted to make themselves gods, knowing and deciding good and evil, bane and blessing.

'"PEACE, PEACE ... CROSS, CROSS": Reflections on how Martin Luther relates the theology of the cross to suffering' by Timothy J Wengert, Theology Today, Jul 2002

The most moving article I ever read in a theological journal. It cuts to the bone.

PS top tip, when reading articles on findarticles.com click the print icon for a much more readable version.

Luther and Erasmus on the gospel and salvation history

Where Erasmus viewed the Scripture in terms of salvation history and placed Jesus' sayings and the Gospels at the center (ad fontes! [= "to the sources"]), Melanchthon found the scopus [goal] of the Scripture in Romans and justification by faith alone. Where Luther and Melanchthon both distinguished between law and gospel in the Scripture, Erasmus consistently constructed a grand unity between the two, culminating in the philosophia Christi, an overarching moral construal of the gospel in which Christ provided the Christian with an ideal example. Thus Erasmus centered his description of the gospel in the creation of a Christian people, not in the forgiveness of sins. His appeal for harmony and concord reflected the very center of Christ's gospel for him.

(Review of Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness: Philip Melanchthon's Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam by Timothy Wengert, Trinity Journal, Spring 1999 by Scheck, Tom)

Sound familiar?

Of course the big danger in reading about church history is that you start off deciding who is orthodox before you even find out what was being taught. Before you know it instead of being concerned to be looking through biblical eyes, you start looking through Martin Luther's, Philipp Melanchton's, or whoever your Christian hero is.

So I have to be careful. By stating that X thought something does not mean that we should pre-judge anything. As Erasmus and the Reformers said, ad fontes!

The Trinitarian structure of 1 John (Part 2)

1 John closes somewhat abruptly with the statement: "Little children, keep yourselves from idols."

This hasn't made much sense to me before because I have always been reading 1 John focused on humans loving one another when reading the book and racking my brains to deal with the seeming Christian Perfectionism. But reading it again today what has struck me is just how much God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are mentioned. Instead it seems that theology is John's major concern. Of course loving one another is massively important but throughout this is seen as firmly founded on the nature of God himself.

The best way to demonstrate this is to encourage you to read the book beginning to end. Seeing that in God the Trinity is life, light, truth and love (some of John's favourite words).

As John says of his purpose in writing the letter it is "so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1:3). More directly he was prompted to write because of false teachers whose false teaching seemed to centre on a denial that Jesus was from God (2:23; 4:2-3; 4:15; 4:14; 5:1; 5:5-6). John points out that while they may think they can deny the Son while worshipping the Father they are mistaken (1 John 2:22-23, a constant theme in the Gospel as well). Denying Jesus they are actually idolaters!

Not only are they idolaters but by denying the Trinitarian work of salvation they are losing love in the process. As John says:

• "By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers."
• "the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him."
• "this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us."
• "We love because he first loved us."

Incidentally this is yet another instance of where I am beginning to think that Judaizers are the main threat behind many NT letters, not proto-Gnostics or any other kind of Hellenized syncretists.

The Trinitarian structure of 1 John (Part 1)

Peter Dray prompted me to read 1 John today on my commute. It's a book that I have neglected to read for far too long. As I was reading it I guess I have been affected by recent blog conversations over the Trinity with Dan Hames and Glen Scrivener which I have learnt a lot from.

Anyway, reading 1 John today the Trinity seemed to purvey everything. Perhaps this short series of posts will show that I am shooting from left field, but I throw them out as things to test.

1 John 2:12-14 reads

I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake. I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

The two statements about little children, fathers and young men clearly parallel each other. Perhaps even like this:

I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake.	I write to you, children, because you know the Father.	Father
I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.	I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.	Son
I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.	I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.	Holy Spirit

The first of pairs doesn't seem to fit my patten. Obviously the second of the two explicitly mentions the Father, but the first doesn't and seems to focus on the Son because of who's name we are forgiven. However, with a different pair of glasses you may focus on the one who does the forgiven, the one we can now know.

The second of the pairs mentions only knowing the one 'who is from the beginning'. John has already said that we know the Father, but the one who is from the beginning must surely refer to the Son of God considering 1 John 1:1 and John 1:1.

How then does the second pair concern the Holy Spirit? I think these quotes suggest that strength, the word of God abiding, and overcoming, are all closely linked to the Spirit in this letter.

by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us. (3:24)

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (4:2-6)

For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? [...] And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. (5:4-7)

By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. (5:13)

We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him. (5:18 cf. John 3:1-14)

What is going on in a death sentence

When thinking about models for the atonement it may help to reflect on the fact the cross was a death sentence. I was thinking about death sentences the other day and it seems that there are two main reasons behind them:

1. To punish wrongdoing by satisfying justice
2. To prevent further wrongdoing by killing the source of wrong

These correlate to the two main models of substitution:

1. Penal substitution
2. Christus Victor

These in turn correlate to two emphasises in Christian teaching:

1. Release from the penalty of sin
2. Release from the power of sin

I used to think that the second flowed out of the first. Now I think that they both live side by side as different aspects of the same event. An event that his thankfully played out again and again in the lives of believers in Christ. Realising this may make it possible to reconcile Melanchthon and Agricola who saw the problem with sin in the life of the Christian as penalty and power respectively.

Any thoughts?

Philip Melanchthon v. John Agricola the rematch

Is there any point in reading a book entitled Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon's Debate With John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia which documents a debate between two Lutheran theologians in the 1520s? When I first bought it I was concerned that it was purely for my personal interest and had no relevance for serving God in the 21st century. However strikingly this debate has never ended although few seem to know its roots. A recent example would be the brouhaha within Young Life in the US (HT Justin Taylor). Christianity Today describes that following challenges the Young Life leadership have produced a statement requiring a certain presentation of the gospel:

YL's eight-page Non-Negotiables statement requires a sequence for gospel presentations that closely resembles Campus Crusade for Christ's Four Spiritual Laws. [...] evangelists should explain the reality and consequences of sin before presenting the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his resurrection. Talks end with an invitation to believe, become a disciple of Jesus, and publicly proclaim one's faith.

YL seems to line up with Melanchthon in this fight. Melanchthon held that the Law should be preached to bring people into a realisation of their sin, and to make them fear God in his wrath against them. They should then confess their sin and accept forgiveness in Jesus' sacrifice. Love for God and righteousness would flow out of this.

Agricola believed the only use of the law was to increase the volume of sin and so show the power and horror of the sin. However it had no role in conversion or the Christian life. Where as 'Poenitentia' meant guilt and contrition for Melanchthon and was a necessary step before forgiveness could be received, for Agricola the highest form of 'Poenitentia' was not to do the sin again. Agricola could see no difference between the contrition of Melanchthon and that of Judas following his betrayal. Agricola believed that 'Poenitentia' was a result of the gospel and not a result of the law.

That is a brief summary but I feel the strength of Agricola's beliefs, although I can also see its dangers.

The danger with studying historical theology is that you start knowing who was your father in the faith, who came out on the winning side and who was dismissed as a heretic. Instead of listening to God's word you listen to the evangelical church fathers. However, it is also good to check yourself before backing the predetermined 'wrong' side. Melanchthon won the day in the 16th century. His influence can be seen from John Wesley's preaching to the 'Four Spiritual Laws'. However, it seems that Evangelicalism is drifting decisively towards Agricola for the first time in its history. Is this a good thing? I still haven't decided, but I am 100% sure that it has a massive difference to my witness to my friends which side I do decide to back.

The Transfiguration on the Mountain

One of the puzzles people consider when reading the account of the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-13) is what are Moses and Elijah doing there?

The most common answer is to represent the Law and the Prophets, or the Law and the Eschaton (Bock). However, while I think there is some truth in that I wonder whether the thing that elicits their mention is the setting on a "high mountain". Moses and Elijah to my poor memory were the only people to have ascended Mount Sinai/Horeb to talk with God.

All the classic marks of God's presence appear in the Gospel narrative (the cloud, the transfiguration like Moses experienced). The disciples were no doubt thinking at first that we would have a second law giving like Moses received, or perhaps a second message and commission like Elijah received. However all they get is 14 words, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him". God then promptly disappears. Except he hasn't. He is present with the disciples in Jesus. Jesus is not a second Moses, or a second Elijah, such that people looked forward to. He is someone quite different. He is not the messenger of the word, but the word himself. As Jesus himself says to the disciples coming down the mountain, he is not Elijah come again (John the Baptist is). He is the one that the second Elijah is not even worthy to untie the sandals of.

[Incidentally I wonder if Paul's comment in Galatians 1:17 "I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus" is meant to be a demonstration of how he received the gospel that he explains in 1:11-12 was "not man's gospel" because he "did not receive it from any man, nor was [he] taught it, but [he] received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." i.e. he went to Mount Sinai and was given his message by God in Christ (Note to self: it is probably time to read Tom Wright's essay on Galatians 1:17)]

Jonah and Jesus in the midst of a storm

When people look at the parallels between Jesus and Jonah focus is usually (rightly) on the sign of Jonah. However I was reading Mark yesterday and read the passage in which Jesus calms the storm (Mark 4:35-41) and my thoughts drifted to the story of Jonah. Jonah is one of my favourite parts of the bible and my thoughts often drift there (I even 'commissioned' my brother to do a print about it once, see picture). Strangely though when looking through my commentaries not all pick up on it and when they do it is only a slight mention which considers the power of God over the weather. However, while Jesus is taking the place of YHWH in this episode I think he is also taking the place of Jonah.

Jesus suggests that they cross the sea of Galilee to go to "the country of the Gerasenes" described by D Bock as "predominantly Gentile, although it had a substantial Jewish population". Although it was unlikely to have been a gentile mission, nevertheless to the Gospel readers that must have come to mind in the light of later events. In contrast Jonah boards a boat to Tarshish to flee the presence of YHWH and the mission he had been given.

Like in Jonah, "a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling." This was no minor squall; as with Jonah the ship was likely going to sink. Obviously though there is no sense that this is God's discipline of Jesus, although in the light of Jesus' later comments it may be discipline of the disciples.

"But [Jesus] was in the stern, asleep on the cushion." just as Jonah had slept in the midst of the storm. "And [the disciples] woke him" as the mariners woke Jesus. The disciples question Jesus, "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?" There seems no reason to believe that they were calling on Jesus to stop the storm, perhaps they wanted him to help bail out the ship, or like Jonah's shipmates to call on God to still the storm.

"And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, 'Peace! Be still!'" Jesus stops the storm as quickly as YHWH does once Jonah has been thrown overboard. As in all the gospels the the main story is Jesus, who has the same awesome power as YHWH of the OT. The disciples demonstrated they had "no faith" in Jesus to be in control of the weather itself, yet Jesus with a word could rebuke the wind as there was no reason for judgment of the Christ and those with him.

The disciples ask "Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" and the answer is provided by the demon (!) a few verses later. Jesus is "Son of the Most High God" but he is also is the man who completed the mission that Israel was too sinful to complete.

Like Jonah he eventually comes to gentile dominated territory. He cleanses the country he finds himself in. The man from the tombs with the "unclean spirit" is healed and the unclean pigs driven into the sea. The Kingdom of God is expanding and driving out the rule of the Devil. Unfortunately unlike the Ninevites the people reject Jesus and drive him back to Galilee. But Jesus does not write off the territory and returns in Mark 7. But I don't know what to make of Jesus' permission to the man to "Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you", which seems to conflict with the theme in Mark of Jesus' refusing to allow people to speak of him. Bock thinks this is because "in a Gentile region there was less chance of misunderstanding". Perhaps it is because Jesus was only visiting and so not risking his life in allowing the news to spread.

Anyway, despite my rambling hopefully we see two things about the identity of Jesus in this passage:

• Jesus as YHWH with power over creation.
• Jesus as Israel should have been, the Kingdom of Priests who bring God's rule and God's message to the world.

A marking post on my journey in Trinitarian Theology

[A comment of mine on Dan Hames' blog]

Hello everyone,

I thought I best account for my absence in case it appear rude especially as I am really thankful for this conversation.

Unfortunately I have had not more than 30min at a computer at any one time for the last week (except at work) and I have been given so much to think about that I can't possibly respond properly without a couple of hours! Nevertheless I have not stopped thinking about what has been discussed and I have been able to read things and listen to lectures on my commute, which has been amazing.

In case any of you cared where I am in my journey through Trinitarian Theology, I thought I would do a summary for myself more than anything. But seeing as it has been formed in conversation with you all (esp. Dan and Glen – not because Martin and Paul don’t have good things to say but because they were there first and there when I had the time to read properly) I thought I would post it in a comment here.

0. God is definitely revealed and Glen was right to pick me up on where my rash comments led, but that doesn't mean that he is fully revealed. However I still think that God is primarily (I think I was wrong to say 'only') revealed in relation to creation, and particularly in our redemption.

1. I’m still not convinced that the Trinity is revealed in the OT in the way in which Glen appears to think it is. So many other people have made the argument better than me that I won’t dwell here.

2. I do think the Trinity is revealed in the OT but not because there are plurals in the names of God, an Angel of YHWH, Wisdom of God etc but because the Trinity is revealed in the unity of God too, just as the Trinity is revealed in the one Son so it can be revealed in the one Elohim.

3. Augustine is getting a horribly rough deal. I think he took into account the three much more he has been given credit for in recent discussion. I also have noted that: (i) some seem to think that he was much less neo-platonic on the Trinity than he has Glen and Dan say (ii) he was combating genuine concerns that were as real as the concerns of Glen and Dan (iii) On his book on the Trinity he spends the first third of the book in the Scriptures before moving on to Philosophy (iv) 'substance' was not 'stuff' for him. In all these things I can't help thinking that Augustine is a hook to hang the faults of the worst of post-Enlightenment Protestantism, much as Tom Wright hangs many of the faults of the worst of Evangelicalism on Luther.

4. I have been reading quite a few creeds and catechisms recently and the Apostles/Nicene creed are remarkably focused on the three - as in fact they are remarkably focused on history and the church.

5. Dan and Glen's thoughts about what makes the Trinity one make remarkable sense logically.

6. They also make remarkable sense of the bible’s own discussion about unity in married couples and the church. - incidentally it would be interesting to read something about the connection between monks and celibacy and conceptions of the Trinity. It is striking that whereas Augustine does go to Gen 1:26-27 to learn of the Trinity in the Trinity's image (apparently he was one of the first to do so) he focuses on the individual that is in the image of God and not the couple ('in the image of God...he created them').

7. This MP3 by Mike Ovey on the inseparable operation of the members of the trinity is the highlight of my listening/reading so far (other than this blog of course). It would be worth listening to while bearing in mind Glen's helpful post.

8. In the light of Mike Ovey's talk I wonder what Dan and Glen would do with: "whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works." "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." Although something similar could be said of the perfect human relationship this is a quantum leap in magnitude.

9. Is "God is love" any more important than "God is true" "God is spirit" "God is faithful" etc or even "God is a consuming fire". In which case does Augustine have a thought when he says "For we are not going to say that God is called Love because love itself is a substance worthy of the name of God, but because it is a gift of God, as it is said to God" and goes on to identify the Holy Spirit as love because he is a gift. Again we have come round to God’s revelation in relation to his creation and not primarily in himself.

10. So I’m still wondering: How bound to the creation is the revelation of God? The Word of God is a title which begs the question 'Word to who?'. Similarly Father and Son all could be related firstly to God's relationship to his people before to intra-Trinitarian discussion. As Calvin says on John 17:24 which Glen brought up earlier:

"This also agrees better with the person of the Mediator than with Christ’s Divinity alone. It would be harsh to say that the Father loved his Wisdom; and though we were to admit it, the connection of the passage leads us to a different view. Christ, unquestionably, spoke as the Head of the Church, when he formerly prayed that the apostles might be united with him, and might behold the glory of his reign. He now says that the love of the Father is the cause of it; and, therefore, it follows that he was beloved, in so far as he was appointed to be the Redeemer of the world. With such a love did the Father love him before the creation of the world, that he might be the person in whom the Father would love his elect."

Reminds me of Ephesians: “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world”. After all ‘Son of God’ was a title for Israel and her king first in the bible. Father was a title for Israel’s God before it was Jesus’ name for the first person of the Trinity. Although this is a facile discussion in some sense as God is the creator of time. Nevertheless he identified with us, and we identify with him – which came first (1 John says the former)?

11. Praise God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that all three in unity chose to bring me into that community to their own glory!

MP3s on the Trinity

[this is a work in progress]

• Allah vs. Yahweh / Tawhid vs. Trinity (Keith Small) - Bethinking.org, Seminar on differences between Muslim and Christian conceptions of God
• Trinity (Mike Reeves) - 30min evangelistic talk
• Digging Deeper - Depending on the Living God (Mike Reeves and Jo McKenzie) - 3 seminars at UCCF Forum 2007
• The Trinity of Persons, Jesus and the Father, Jesus and the Spirit (Bruce Ware) - 3 messages at the 2005 Desiring God Conference for Pastors
• Inseparable Operation: The trinity working together (Michael J. Ovey) - In a masterful talk given to returning graduates at Oak Hill Theological College in 2002, Mike Ovey expounds the Augustinian doctrine of the inseparable operation of the members of the trinity.
• Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles: Eternal Functional Authority and Submission among the Essentially Equal Divine Persons of the Godhead (Bruce Ware) - 2006 SBTS Faculty Address
• How can Christianity be both monotheistic and Trinitarian? (Tim Keller)

More here.

Luther on the 10 Commandments

I've recently become quite fond of catechisms as carefully, and often delightfully, wrought statements of faith. I've recently been reading Luther's Little Catechism and two things have struck me about how he has treated the 10 commandments.

Firstly, he illustrates the way the first commandment runs through the heart of the rest in a beautiful way. For Luther "this Commandment is the very first, highest and best, from which all the others proceed, in which they exist, and by which they are directed and measured, so also its work, that is, the faith or confidence in God's favor at all times, is the very first, highest and best, from which all others must proceed, exist, remain, be directed and measured" (A treatise on Good Works). He starts all of his answers about the meaning of the commandments with "We must fear and love God..." echoing his language from his explanation of the first that "we must fear, love, and trust God more than anything else."

Secondly, I was struck by his explanation of the meaning of the third commandment.

C. The Third Commandment

You must keep the Sabbath holy.(Exodus 20:8)

Q. What does this mean?

A. We must fear and love God, so that we will not look down on preaching or God’s Word, but consider it holy, listen to it willingly, and learn it.

Something to think about there. The word is of massive importance to Luther, although he agrees we should rest once a week "the force and power of this commandment lies not in the resting but in the sanctifying so that to this day belongs a special holy exercise. For other works and occupations are not properly called holy exercises, unless the man himself be first holy. But here a work is to be done by which man is himself made holy, which is done (as we have heard ) alone through God's Word" (Luther's Large Catechism)

Quotable: Luther on how God draws near

"Christ is an astounding king, who instead of defending his people, deserts them. Whom he would save, he must first make a despairing sinner. Whom he would make wise, he must first turn into a fool. Whom he would make alive, he must first kill. Whom he would bring to honour, he must first bring into dishonour. He is a strange king who is nearest when he is far and farthest when he is near."