Questioning Evangelism

As an aside to my previous post. Questions are sometimes as good as answers to questions we are asked. Randy Newman has done more than most to bring that important principle to my mind. I often forget and theology-dump on people; and even worse do it in an unstructured mess which reflects my messed up brain. However some questions deserve answers as well as more questions. Still they probably should include questions mixed up with them.

You are probably familiar with the simply stated principle Randy Newman has popularised, but if not you can listen to these talks:

• Questioning Evangelism, part 1
• Questioning Evangelism, part 2

God's justice

Today a non-Christian who often comes to our church asked me how it could be just that if we deserve punishment due to our sin, it is just for that punishment to be received by another.

It is shamefully a difficult question for me to answer well. I say it is shameful because it is so close to the heart of the Christian faith. My response (so far - I have agreed to get back to him) pointed at a few things which would help us some way towards an answer:

1. Jesus was not a third party to the dispute, but God himself who chose to take the punishment upon himself.
2. Jesus chose to do this willingly and not under coercion.
3. We should get our idea of justice from God, and not impose it on him.
4. Connected to that, God is not seeking to satisfy another god called Justice, but seeking to satisfy himself.
5. We do not just have an individual identity, but also a corporate one. As a corporate unit we were judged in Christ who is our head.

Sadly my answer, nor that of others, was found to be very satisfactory.

I think the heart of the issue is point 5. Corporate responsibility is an alien concept to us now. Most Christians struggle with the numerous OT passages where God punishes the families of those who rebel (e.g. Num 16) and find that Exodus 20:5-6 ('I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments') sticks in the throat. We are much more comfortable with Ezekiel 18:20 ('The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself').

I need to think more this week about:

1. How to fit together individual and corporate responsibility in God's justice (because there is clearly both).
2. How to communicate the justice of corporate responsibility to a contemporary Western non-Christian.

Any help would be gratefully received (even book recommendations).

Apart from your help my first points of call will be John Stott and PT Forsyth.

BTW this is a different person to that person who asked this question.

A Centurion for a guide

Trinitarian theology causes me a lot of head scratching. Particularly difficult for me to understand is how 'It is in the Son that God is presented to us in a human life, but through his Trinitarian perichoresis that human life images both the Father and the Spirit so that the specificities of their functions and their relationships come into focus' (p. 105f, Tom Smail, Life Father like Son). However, it is in 'the gospel story where God reveals himself' (p.82, ibid), and it is here, rather than abstractions that things become clearer for me. Tom Smail points to the Centurions's comments in Luke 7 for an example of how Jesus reveals his Father:

"Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith."

Tom Smail comments that:

What that Gentile faith grasps is that, through the exercise of what is proper to his Sonship, namely his obedience to the Father, in which he is a man under authority, he participates in what is proper to his Father - the power to utter a sovereign word that can take the initiative to break savingly into a situation - and becomes a man with authority to issue orders to illnesses.

(p. 105, ibid)

Stumbling around in my head

I'm currently reading Like Father Like Son: The Trinity Imaged in Our Humanity by Tom Smail. It is a good book, and I'm seeing the truth of Jason Goroncy's statement about Tom Smail that 'If only he didn't write so clearly then perhaps he might be taken more seriously as a theologian'.

I'm still trying to thrash over in my head what Tom Smail describes quite well:

'One of Karl Barth's central theological axioms was that when we are talking of God, it is the actuality that determines the possibility and not the other way round. We do not limit our openness to what God has done by prior notions of our own about what he could do; rather, our basis for recognizing what he can do is what he has already done' (p.27)

Karl Barth himself explains how this has massive implications for our understanding of the nature of God:

'If in faith in Jesus Christ we are ready to learn, to be told, what Godhead, or the divine nature is, we are confronted with what is and always will be to all other ways of thinking a mystery, and indeed a mystery that offends. The mystery reveals to us that for God it is just as natural to be lowly as it is to be high, to be near as it is to be far, to be little as it is to be great, to be abroad as it is to be at home.' (p. 152, CD IV:1 The Doctrine of Reconcilliation, 1956; quoted in p.77, Smail)

I keep on thinking over Philippians 2 and this idea. I am far from decided. My difficulty is that Jesus gave up what was naturally his in his incarnation ('though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor'). And also that though he was crucified, he was also resurrected. Although the NT is clear that Jesus' glory is his cruxifiction as well as his resurrection (e.g. John 12) and that he is glorified because of his cruxifiction (e.g. Phil 2:9 and Rev 5:12). It is difficult for me.

Also difficult for me is understand is precisely how the Son reveals the Trinity. Tom Smail describes how he has two icons of Jesus. One depicting him alone looking out, and one of Jesus with the other two members of the Trinity looking at the Father (he has Rublev's famous one).

Smail comments that 'It is impossible to make any sense of the Jesus of the gospels if we treat him as a solitary individual whose significance is in himself' (p. 67 - which begs the question why you have such an icon - I hate icons). My difficulty is understanding whether we should see the Trinity revealed in Jesus as that solitary individual dying on the cross and rising to new life, or in Jesus as he dies in broken relationship toward his Father, and whom the Father restored by the power of the Spirit. The second option would seem to be right, but does that alter Barth's conclusion that for God it is 'natural to be lowly', when our Father is, and always has been, in heaven. Having said that God the Father obviously suffered seeing his Son crucified, and has throughout human history endured his name being blasphemed. All very difficult for me to make my head around!

And as an aside, listenining to their podcast, Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo have both introduced me to the wonderful phrase 'pharisaic cadre', and to the fact that Richard Nixon was a Quaker.

Why do good works?

Martin Luther in The Freedom of the Christian claims that 'no other work makes you a Christian than the one work: "you believe in him who he has sent" (John 6:29)'. This inevitably leads to the question: why then would anyone do anything good?

In The Freedom of the Christian at least his argument seems to have this structure:

1. The Christian seeks to do certain good works such as fasting because he wants to bring his body under control.
2. He seeks to bring his body under control because he wants to serve his neighbour more.
3. He seeks to bring his serve his neighbour more because he spontaneously desires to please God.
4. He seeks spontaneously desires to please God because his inner man has been created in the image of God and made new by faith.
5. He is able to freely and cheerfully do this because he has all riches of righteousness and salvation in Christ.

Interestingly he never speaks explicitly of doing works out of gratitude or thanks (although that sometimes seems implied). Nor does he argue that it will bring benefits to the Christian that he would not otherwise receive either in this life or in the future.

Also striking to my eye was his emphasis on subjecting the body which is not heard much in the contemporary church. However, it is also interesting that he does not argue that this should be done because of some value that this has in itself, but instead he sees it as a means to the end of serving others. In this way he beautifully combines the importance of both private good works (bible reading, fasting etc) and public good works (practical help to the poor etc), and shows how they are inseparable, but of different orders of importance.

An outline of 'The Freedom of the Christian' by Martin Luther

[I've been meaning to do this for myself for ages. Please feel free to critique as it was a bit rushed. A old translation can be found online here. Newer translations can be bought.]

1. INTRODUCTION

This is a treatise on faith

It can be summarised in the two statements:

(i) 'A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none.'

(ii) 'A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.'

Scripture can say contradictory things about the same person because of the distinction it makes between the spiritual (inner) and bodily (outer) nature of man

2. THE INNER MAN - 'A CHRISTIAN IS A PERFECTLY FREE LORD OF ALL, SUBJECT TO NONE.'

2.1 How the inner man becomes righteous and free

Consider the inner man to see how someone becomes righteous, free and pious.

He cannot become so by external things, as both the wicked and godly experience all types of situation, and can do all kinds of works.

Only the Word of God, the gospel of Christ can do make someone righteous and free.

The Word of God cannot be cherished by works, but only by faith (hence justification by faith, not works).

Faith cannot even exist with works because faith makes you see works as damnable.

2.2 Law and Gospel

Objection: if faith alone justifies then why are there so many commands in Scripture.

Answer: There is a distinction between Commands and promises. Commands teach man to know himself, and make him despair, and seek help. The promises fulfill the commands for us. So all things are God's alone.

2.3 Powers of faith

Grasping promises with faith means you share in their power. There are 3 powers of faith:

• Power of faith 1: All things necessary for salvation are imparted to us.
• Power of faith 2: It honours him who it trusts as it considers God truthful, righteous and trustworthy.
• Power of faith 3: It unites the soul with Christ as a bride to a bridegroom, where he shares all our sins, death and pain of hell, and we share his righteousness and life.

2.4 Christians are kings and priests in Christ

Christ is a greater king and priest than the OT because his kingdom and priesthood are heavenly.

United in marriage with Christ, Christians too are kings and priests.

As kings all things serve a Christian's salvation, even death and suffering.

As priests Christians are able to come into the presence of God and pray for each other, and teach one another.

One who does not believe is not served by all things and all things turn out for bad. His prayers are not heard and he cannot come into God's presence.

Excursus: Faith gives all things but if someone seeks salvation in works he will lose the benefits of faith.

2.4.1 Role of those called priests in contrast to lay people

Objection: If all are priests, what is the role of those we call priests.

Answer: to serve and teach (unlike so many priests who are actually tyrants)

2.5 Conclusion

Christ's works, life and words should not be preached as historical facts. He should be preached as an object of faith. By preaching faith is produced and there is Christian liberty and rejoicing over sin and death.

3. THE OUTER MAN - 'A CHRISTIAN IS A PERFECTLY DUTIFUL SERVANT OF ALL, SUBJECT TO ALL.'

3.1 Works which a Christian does for himself

A Christian man is not perfect immediately, but receives the fullness of the Spirit in the future. He must control his body and have dealings with men.

Body must be disciplined by fastings, watchings, and labours to be conformed to the inner man.

The inner man and the flesh are at war. This is because the inner man is clean and loves God so desires to see all things (esp. his own body) join with him in loving and praising God. He is does many good works to subject the body because he desires the approval of God.

Because this is his goal, he only does good works as long as they serve this goal, and not beyond as if there is something good about doing them in themselves, and that they earn righteousness.

3.1.1 'Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works; evil works do not make a wicked man, but a wicked man does evil works.'

Example 1: Adam and Eve were righteous but did works so that:

a) they were not idle.

b) to provide for their body

For the approval of God.

But faith and love are not increased by external works but by themselves.

Example 2: A bishop performs acts belonging to his office. These acts do not make him become a bishop, but they are valid because he is already a bishop.

Illustrations 1: tree produces fruit, not the other way round.

Illustrations 2: a builder builds a house, not the other way round.

In the sight of men people are made good/evil by their works, but men can be thus deceived.

Works are to be rejected if they are sought as a means to righteousness, as this changes their nature from good to damnable.

We must preach both commands and promises. Law is necessary for bringing fear and knowledge of sin, but we must also preach faith as if we just preach commands then people get the impression that that works justify.

3.2 Works which man does for his neighbour

The Christian must bring his body into subjection for the purpose of serving others.

As the Christian has all riches by faith he gives willingly and cheerfully without hope of reward. Christ (who we share with by faith) is our great example in this.

• Christ had everything but emptied himself.
• Christ loved both his friends and enemies.
• Our neighbour in need is like we were. We should act as Christ acted towards us toward our neighbour.

We have made Christ a new tougher Moses.

• Example of faith 1: Mary who did not need to be purified submitted to the law to avoid offending other women.
• Example of faith 2: Paul circumcised Timothy though it was not necessary for righteousness.
• Example of faith 3: Christ paying taxes to Caesar (Matt 7)
• Example of fatih 4: Paul saying Christians should submit to government.

Good things flow from Christ to us by faith (by which we ascend to God), and from us to others by love (by which we descend to our neighbour).

4. THE MIDDLE WAY

People in reaction to those who rely on works for their salvation reject all ceremonies and laws. Both sides are in error.

Rejecting ceremonies etc does not make you righteous anymore than doing them.

Our freedom in Christ is not from works, but from false opinions about works. Our kingship is not of this world, we are still bound by needs of the bodily life.

Two types of people observe ceremonies. The stubborn who should be offended, and the ignorant and week, who care must be taken not to offend. This is how we love them.

Ceremonies have a role as models and plans, but are laid aside when the structure is complete. Hence they are not despised, but not held onto as the real and permanent structure.

5. CONCLUSION ON THE NEED FOR PRAYER

Humans are naturally superstitious and seek salvation by works so we must pray that God teaches us and writes the law on our hearts.

To understand Paul on salvation we must understand him on sin

Richard Gaffin makes a convincing argument that ' if we are to understand Paul on salvation on salvation, including the order of salvation, we must understand him on sin' (p. 29, By Faith, Not by Sight). He argues this mainly on the recurrence of phrases like 'for our sins' in the most important of Paul's brief summaries of the Gospel.

He identifies several facets of Paul's treatment of sin:

1. It is 'anti-relational' (primarily the in relation to God)
2. It is 'illegal'
3. It is 'universal'
4. It is an 'enslaving and corrupting power'

Gaffin considers that sin has 'all sorts of disastrous and ruinous consequences' but the two basic consequences are:

1. 'guilt'; and
2. 'enslavement'

Classically, described as the penalty and power of sin (although Gaffin doesn't mention this). In my view the NPP (esp. Wright) focuses mainly on the latter, and the old perspective on the former.

I think the old perspective is right to emphasise the penalty, as the power of Satan and sin is primarily that of accusation (after all that is what Satan means). But we must celebrate the freedom from both.

Realised eschatology as the true 'new perspective' on Paul

Part of the recent consensus in Pauline scholarship emerging over the course of the twentieth century, just noted, is that Paul's eschatology has a dual or elliptical focus. For him eschatology is defined not only in terms of Christ's second coming but also by his first, by what has already taken place in Christ, especially his death and resurrection, as well as what is still future at his return. Paul teaches an eschatology that for the church is, i part, present, already realized.

In my view, looking at developments over the history of the interpretation of Paul as a whole, the relatively recent widespread recognition of his realized eschatology represents the truly "new perspective" on Paul, one that is far more important with wider-ranging implications than those developments of the past several decades given that designation. I would observe here that a commensurate impact of this rediscovery is still to be had in the doctrine and life of the church, in its preaching and teaching.

(p.26f, Richard B. Gaffin Jr, By Faith, Not by Sight)

1. Isn't 'elliptical' a great word to use for this?
2. How do I need to is my life and doctrine yet to be impacted with this rediscovery I know in my head? How will the penny drop for me?

Stop listening to yourself

I apologise in advance for the ridiculously long quotes in this post, but they are brilliant.

The main trouble in this whole matter of spiritual depression in a sense is this, that we allow our self to talk to us instead of talking to our self. Am I just trying to be deliberately paradoxical? Far from it. This is the very essence of wisdom in this matter. Have you realized that most of your unhappiness in life is due to the fact that you are listening to yourself instead of talking to yourself? Take those thoughts that come to you the moment you wake up in the morning. You have not originated them, but they start talking to you, they bring back the problem of yesterday, etc. Somebody is talking. Who is talking to you? Your self is talking to you. Now this man’s treatment [in Psalm 42] was this; instead of allowing this self to talk to him, he starts talking to himself, ‘Why art thou cast down, O my soul?’ he asks. His soul had been repressing him, crushing him. So he stands up and says: ‘Self, listen for a moment, I will speak to you’. Do you know what I mean? If you do not, you have but little experience.

(D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cures, pp. 20f)

Martin Luther knew better than most how to talk your way out of spiritual depression. However, for him the devil was real and the one to have God's promises spoken to. However, God was also close at hand in the words of those who spoke in his name.

do not dwell on your own thoughts, but listen to what other people have to say to you. For God has commanded men to comfort their brethren, and it is his will that the afflicted should receive such consolation as God's very own [...]

Inasmuch, then, as God desires everyone to comfort his brother, and desires that such comfort be received with a believing heart, be done with your own thoughts. Know that the devil is tormenting you with them, and that they are not your thoughts but the cursed devil's, who cannot bear to see us have joyful thoughts.

Listen, then to what we are saying to you in God's name: Rejoice in Christ, who is your gracious Lord and Redeemer [...]

If you are convinced that [your own] thoughts come from the devil you have already gained the victory.

(pp.96f, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel, ed. and trans. Theodore G. Tappert [1534])

Slightly more seriously, Luther lays down how he dealt with his own doubts about whether he was one of the elect:

I know all about this affliction. I was myself brought to the brink of eternal death by it [...] I shall show you how God helped me out of this trouble and by what means I now protect myself against it every day.

First, you must firmly fix in your mind the conviction that such thoughts as yours are assuredly the suggestions and fiery darts of the wretched devil [...]

Secondly, when such thoughts assail you, you should learn to ask yourself, "If you please, in which Commandment is it written that I should think about and deal with this matter?" When it appears that there is no such Commandment, learn to say: "Begone, wretched devil! You are trying to make me worry about myself. But God declares everywhere that I should let him care for me [...]

Thirdly, if these thoughts nevertheless continue (for the devil is reluctant to give up), you too must refuse to give up. You must always turn your mind away from them and say: "Don't you hear, devil? I will have nothing to do with such thoughts. Moreover, God has forbidden me to. Begone! I must now think of God's Commandments. Meanwhile I shall let him care for me. If you are so clever in these matters, go up to heaven and dispute with God himself [...]

Fourthly, the highest of God's commands is this, that we hold up before our eyes the image of his dear Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Everyday he should be our excellent mirror wherein we behold how much God loves us and how well, in his infinite goodness, he has cared for us in that he gave his dear Son for us.

In this way, I say and no other, does one learn how to deal properly with the question of predestination. It will be manifest that you believe in Christ. If you believe, then you are called. And if you are called, then you are most certainly predestinated. Do not let this mirror and throne of grace be torn away from your eyes. If such thoughts still come and bite like fiery serpents, pay no attention to the thoughts or serpents. Turn away from these notions and contemplate the brazen serpent [John 3:14], that is Christ given for us.

(pp.115ff, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel, ed. and trans. Theodore G. Tappert [1534])

Incidentally, after some thought, I think that that last paragraph gets at what Paul means when he 'the Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God' (Romans 8:16). The witness of the Spirit is not a feeling or voice in your head telling you that you are elect. It is externalised in the cry 'Abba, Father' (v.15; c.f 2 Cor 1:19-22, Luke 12:11-12). It is not subsequent to belief in the Gospel, but it is belief that the Gospel is true. That is why the Reformers (in contrast to some Puritans) made assurance inseparable from faith. For example, Calvin defines faith as 'a firm and certain knowledge of God's benevolence toward 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' (Institutes, 3.2.7) and Luther describes it as 'a living, daring confidence in God's grace, so sure and certain that the believer would stake his life on it a thousand times' ("Preface to the Epistle of St Paul to the Romans" [1546] LW vol.35 p. 370)

Having said that Calvin understands the witness of the Spirit slightly differently to me (cf. his commentary on Ephesians 1:13 and on Romans 8:16 itself). He seems to see it more as unconscious change in the heart, but which is manifested in our calling upon God:

our faith has no true evidence, except we call upon God. It is not then without reason that Paul, bringing us to this test, shows that it then only appears how truly any one believes, when they who have embraced the promise of grace, exercise themselves in prayers.

However, it is notable that when Luther recommends clear 'practical' advice it is to listen to other people who speak with the Spirit's voice, and to call upon the Lord in joyful song.

When you are sad, therefore, and when melancholy threatens to get the upper hand, say "Arise, I must play a song unto the Lord on my regal [a portable organ] (be it the Te Deum laudamus or the Benedictus), for the Scriptures teach us that it pleases him to hear a joyful song and the music of stringed instruments." Then begin striking the keys and singing in accompaniment, as David and Elisha did, until your sad thoughts vanish. If the devil returns and plants worries and sad thoughts in your mind resist him manfully and say, "Begone, devil! I must now play and sing unto my Lord Christ."

(pp.96f, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel, ed. and trans. Theodore G. Tappert [1534])

The church is not a theocracy

Have you ever heard the following reason for why we don't have to follow the Mosaic Law:

The Mosaic Law was provided for a theocratic nation, and the church is not a theocratic nation.

Did the NT authors ever use that argument? Not that I can think of.

Law and Gospel, God and man

Martin Luther famously identified that law and Gospel must be 'rightly and properly distinguished' for either to be understood properly. He argued that doctrine could be 'falisfied, either by mingling these two into one, or by mistaking the one for the other' ("The Distinction between Law and Gospel: A Sermon by Martin Luther" trans. Willard L Burce, Concordia Journal 18).

In Christianity Explored this evening Rico Tice argued that the disciples initially understood Jesus as human, but did not see him as divine. Strictly this is true. But throughout the Gospels you find that there was a two-fold error that those who encountered Jesus fell into. They neither understood him as divine, but neither could they comprehend quite how human he was.

We know the danger of thinking that Christianity is law-lite by mingling law and Gospel. We also know that we can make Christianity into Gospel without law, or law without Gospel, by mistaking one for the other (and so misunderstanding both).

Similarly, the disciples often saw Jesus as a semi-divine Messiah who would rule and lead Israel, but could not still storms or lay down his life to take it up again because that was too high for him, or for that matter die an ignominious death because that would be too low for him. In this way they mingled the divine and human natures of Jesus and lost both. Also similarly, people now treat Jesus as only human and ignore his deity, or see him as only divine, who visited Palestine dressed in white robes and floating a few inches above the ground (HT Tom Wright for that phrase).

UPDATE

The Chalcedonian Creed says it better than me:

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;

the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;

Rebekah and the Samaritan Woman

There are some remarkable parallels between Rebekah in Genesis 24 and the Samaritan Woman in John 1:1-45.

The descendants of Nahor were part of Abraham's family but somewhat removed, geographically and by faith. Terah, Abram and Lot left Ur of the Chaldeans possibly leaving Nahor with idolatry (Josh 24:2), but certainly leaving him behind in their journey to the promised land. The Samaritans were also the awkward family members to the Jews in Jesus' day, related but with their own land, and their own faith.

They share several other literary connections:

• Both involve a man alone on a journey in a land of the estranged family.
• Both men meet a woman at her local well and ask her straight out for a drink (Gen 24:17; John 4:7).
• The reactions of each of the women differ markedly. One is defensive and suspicious, and one is gracious and open.
• Both men have offer something wonderful to the women.
• The reaction of both women is finally to run back to town and describe what has just happened.
• The town welcomes Jesus and ask him to stay with them for two nights. The city of Nahor also welcomes Abraham's servant and persuade him to stay with them for a night.

In addition both narratives are concerned with marriage, and a marriage into the covenant line, with the promised seed of Abraham.

The Samaritan woman is not just another individual but representative of Samaria, and all the nations. She has had many husbands and not accepted that salvation comes from the Jews (cf. Jer 3:8; Hos 4:15 etc). If you see that then the women's next response to Jesus ('Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship') becomes not just a random theological riposte to try and gain the offensive, but illustrative of exactly how she has had different husbands. Jesus points her beyond the covenant with the old Jerusalem, to himself as the new Jerusalem where the nations will flood too (e.g. Jer 3:17). She has had many husbands, but he is the bridegroom that will really satisfy, as John the Baptist has only just declared (John 3:29).

Do you think I'm drawing lines which are not there?

I really don't think I am, but realise I haven't explained it as fluently as it deserves. Hopefully you get the picture though.

The unpardonable sin

I haven't heard a logically more feasible explanation of what the unpardonable sin is than Walther's. But I am not sure it quite fits the Biblical context.

[Matthew 12:30-32] states to begin with, that all blasphemy against the Father and the Son shall be forgiven [...] Now, it is certain that the Holy Spirit is not a more glorious and exalted person than the Father and the Son, but He is coequal with them. Accordingly, the meaning of this passage cannot be that the unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the person of the Holy Spirit; for blasphemy against the Father and the Son is exactly the same sin. The blasphemy to which our text refers is directed against the office, or operation, of the Holy Spirit; whoever spurns the office of the Holy Sirit, his sin cannot be forgiven. The office of the Holy Spirit is to call men to Christ and to keep them with Him [...] The sin is not unpardonable because of its magnitude - for the apostle, as we heard has distinctly declared: 'Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound' - but because the person committing this sin rejects the only means by which he can be brought to repentance, faith, and steadfastness in faith.

(pp.393-398, CFW Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel)

Tyndale Bulletin Online

The most exciting news of my blog reading year so far...

"Each issue of the Tyndale Bulletin--which began in 1956--is now online" (Justin Taylor)

The second use of the law at the cross

Sin [...] is not measured by a law, or a nation, or a society of any kind, but by a Person. The righteousness of God was not in a requirement, system, book, or Church, but in a Person, and sin is defined by relation to Him. He came to reveal not only God but sin. The essence of sin is exposed by the touchstone of His presence, by our attitude to Him. He makes explicit what the sinfulness of sin is; He even aggravates it. He rouses the worst as well as the best of human nature. There is nothing that human nature hates like holy God. All the world's sin receives its sharpest expression when in contact with Christ; when, in face of His moral beauty, goodness, power, and claim, He is first ignored, then discarded, denounced, called the agent of Beelzebub, and hustled out of the world in the name of God.

(pp. 56-57, PT Forsyth, Missions in State and Church: Sermons and Addresses, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908, HT Per Crucem ad Lucem)

This is a similar thing to what Marcus Honeysett is saying in the clip Dave Bish links to. The Law is not just explicit commandments.

Who is the covenant with?

In Genesis 16 Sarai deals harshly with Hagar. Hagar is seen and heard by YHWH. She is also told to go back to her Sarai and submit to her!

In Genesis 17 YHWH declares that the covenant that he has with Abram is that 'every male shall be circumcised' and it is made clear that this includes Ishmael first through the emphasis in vv.12f on how everyone under Abram is to be circumcised, and secondly in vv.24f where we are told that Ishmael was circumcised. However, God also states that the covenant will be established with Isaac vv.18-22 and definitely not with Ishmael.

There is a tension here. After all God is giving the sign of the covenant to those whom he is not going to establish the covenant with and helping the Egyptian servant looks with contempt on his chosen people! God is overflowing in his love and is not the property of Abram. However, Abram and his chosen line is given the pre-eminent rule, and special blessing.

Few things have changed. Abramham's Seed is still the one with whom God establishes his covenant. He is the one to who we should submit, so that we can share in his blessing.

[I ought to read Dumbrell's Covenant and Creation again, because I cannot remember the technical meaning of 'establishing a covenant'.]

Abraham's journey of faith

Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot. Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his kindred, in Ur of the Chaldeans. And Abram and Nahor took wives. The name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and Iscah. Now Sarai was barren; she had no child.

Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there. The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran.

Now the Lord said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you."

(Genesis 11:27-12:1)

Abraham was not just called by God to the promised land. He was chased there!

I was struck by that after reading Genesis 11 on a day when I dealt with a death claim at work for a father who had recently lost his daughter. The worst death claims to me are those where a parent is dealing with their children's death.

Terah is having a merry old time in Ur when one of his three sons dies in his presence. Another son is finding it impossible to have children. Perhaps he is thinking that this is not such a good place to live after all. He decides to emigrate and find a better life. Nahor is doing alright so he decides to stay put, but the rest of the clan follow.

Nicely settled in their new home in Heran, Terah is quite happy and the family acquire lots of people and possessions (12:5). But then Terah dies and there is nothing forcing the rest of the family to stay. Perhaps, if they head further west, life will be even better.

It was still doubtless by faith that Abram decided decided to head God's call. Nevertheless God made it easier by burning some bridges as he went.

The age of the Patriarchs

OK I'm a boring geek, who actually finds graphs really interesting.

I am also unsurprisingly being led to read Genesis in January by my Bible reading plan.

I had always made an assumption about the ages of the humanity declining at a fairly steady pace from Adam onwards. But no! Slightly more careful reading has made me realise that the decline in ages only really starts following Noah.

What do you think the significance of that is?

My feeling is that we are being told that Ham/Noah cause a second fall. And being more subtle perhaps Babel is then a third fall ('the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided'). The genealogy of Genesis 5 relates the affects of the Fall by the refrain 'and he died'. The genealogy of Genesis 11 relates the affects of the second major fall (I think there are several further falls in Genesis 4) by the drop off in ages.

Here are the ages according to the ESV:

Adam: 930 years
Seth: 912 years
Enosh: 905 years
Kenan: 910 years
Mahalalel: 895 years
Jared: 962 years
Enoch: 365+ years
Methuselah: 969 years
Lamech: 777 years
Noah: 950 years
Shem: 600 years
Arpachshad: 458 years
Shelah: 433 years
Eber: 464 years
Peleg: 239 years
Reu: 239 years
Serug: 230 years
Nahor: 148 years
Terah: 205 years
Abraham: 175 years
Isaac: 180 years
Jacob: 147 years

Online Timothy Wengert Resources

[I'll try and keep this updated as I find more, but please let me know if you know of anything I don't].

Timothy Wengert is Ministerium of Pennsylvania Professor, Reformation History at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.

Articles, Papers etc

• "Luther's Catechisms and the Lord's Supper", World and Word, Winter 1997
• "Graceful words: Justification", The Lutheran, December 2000
• "Luther and Melanchthon on Consecrated Communion Wine (Eisleben 1542-1543)", Lutheran Quarterly, Volume XV (Spring 2001)
• "Bearing Christ as Melanchthon’s Contribution to The Book of Concord", Lutheran Quarterly, Volume XV (Winter 2001)
• "'PEACE, PEACE ... CROSS, CROSS': Reflections on how Martin Luther relates the theology of the cross to suffering", Theology Today, July 2002
• "Authorization for Ministry and the Lutheran Confessions", The ELCA Conference of Bishops October 2003
• "The End of the Public Office of Ministry in the Lutheran Confessions", The ELCA Conference of Bishops October 2003
• "Trust the heavenly banquet", The Lutheran, November 2003
• "Martin Luther and the Ten Commandments in the Large Catechism", Currents in Theology and Mission, April, 2004
• "The Priesthood of All Believers and Other Pious Myths", Sessions of the Institute of Liturgical Studies 2005
• Sermon on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, November 2002
• Sermon on John 3:1-17, February 2005

Audio

• Lecture: Martin Luther on the Decalogue (MP3)
• Lecture: Reading the Bible with Martin Luther (Video)

Contemporary society under the law

Is there any use in attempting to understand our society as under the law, when most of us no longer accept the existence of a law-giver?

Oswald Bayer thinks that we can...

Precisely the individualistic antinomianism of modernity and postmodernity ends up being legalistic. Individuals want to think of themselves as different, but they act in masses.They want to follow the ideals of freedom and diversity of options, but the anticipation of new experiences, the anxiety of missing something and the imperative of incessantly having to choose and decide drives them afresh to competition and to being overburdened

[...]

The fulfillment of the law is [...] presupposed to have occurred already in principle: the human being is free, good and spontaneous. In this sense, modernity and postmodernity are antinomian.

The new human beings of modernity and postmodernity, however, always must yet become, under the compulsion of realizing it by themselves, what they already are. The generally asserted gospel of freedom places human beings simultaneously under the compulsion of realizing themselves and fulfilling their potential, since from birth itself it is theirs already. If, however, freedom is not announced and communicated from without, but rather belongs to me from the very start, then I as both an individual and collective subjectivity am burdened with the fulfillment of the promise given to me by myself—not liberated for freedom, but "damned to be free" (Sartre); I am not allowed to be free, I rather must free myself.

[...]

Even if this human being—precisely according to modern and postmodern transformations—no longer directly recognizes the one who speaks in the law, perhaps, indeed, does not even hear a voice, he or she nevertheless experiences more or less anonymously the inescapable demand: "Here you and no other are addressed. Here you are responsible. If you evade it, you are guilty." The human being is ultimately responsible: that is the element of truth of Kantian anthropology and ethics, in which it—against postmodern diffusion and covering of tracks—is the ally of theology.

(pp.7-9, "With Luther in the Present", Lutheran Quarterly, Spring 2007 Volume XXI, Number 1)

There are piles of good works around, near to hand

Martin Luther's Treatise on Good Works was described by Melanchthon, in a letter to John Hess, as Luther's best book.

It is a cracking little read. A short 100 page exposition of the 10 commandments that brings the Decalogue alive in a way I have read no other writer do.

A refrain throughout the book are comments like this:

Now see what kind of good works a householder and a mistress can do! How splendidly God shows us all good works so near at hand, in such a variety and so continuously that we need not ask for good works to do and could well forget all those works devised by men, the showy, far-flung works, such as making pilgrimages, building churches, seeking indulgences, and things like that. (p. 180, Selected Writings of Martin Luther: Vol 1, ed. by Theodore G. Tappert)

What is striking about Luther in this book is his evident joy that there are a plethora of good works for us to do, and they are near at hand. I must confess that this actually fills me with trepidation for the future and guilt for the past because although good works are what we are saved for (Ephesians 2:10), I have time and again chosen not to live in that salvation.

So how can I develop that joy in the opportunity to do good? Luther is clear from the beginning:

Look here! This is how you must cultivate Christ in yourself, and see how in him God holds before you his mercy and offers it to you without any prior merits of your own. It is from such a view of his grace that you must draw faith and confidence in the forgiveness of all your sins. Faith, therefore, does not originate in works; neither do works create faith, but faith must spring up and flow from the blood and wounds and death of Christ. (p.120, ibid)

As good Protestants we all know it, but all forget it. Works flow from faith, not the other way round. If you have a couple of more minutes read Luther's classic description of faith from his 'An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans'

The crowded judgment seat

If you were to imagine Judgment day you may imagine God the Father on the judgment seat meeting out our just deserts and Jesus jumping in at certain points to shout 'this one is mine'. Perhaps you haven't been reading the Apostles' Creed, or your Bible because it will be Christ in the judgment seat.

"Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy before the Lord, for he comes, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness, and the peoples in his faithfulness." (Psalm 96:12-13)

"The Lord has taken his place to contend; he stands to judge peoples." (Isaiah 3:13)

"The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son" (John 5:22)

"And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that [Jesus] is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead." (Acts 10:42)

"he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)

"Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead" (2 Timothy 4:1)

But wait a moment! Perhaps it is still not that simple. For if you really were reading your bible you would find out that the Church will be occupying the judgment seat too!

"the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom." (Daniel 7:22)

"Jesus said to them, 'Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'" (Matthew 19:28)

"do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!" (1 Corinthians 6:2-3)

"Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." (Revelation 20:4)

• How do you fit these passages into your understanding of Judgment day?
• How do you fit these passage into your understanding of your justification?
• How do you fit these passages into your understanding of the Trinity?
• How do you fit these passages into your understanding of what you are saved too?
• How do you fit these passages into your understanding of passages such as 'Judge not, that you be not judged' (Matthew 7:1; cf. Romans 14:13)? (perhaps 1 Corinthians 4:5 offers a clue)

Who's side is God on?

I have been refamiliarising myself with Tom Wright's stimulating reading of Paul in recent days by listening again to his series of lectures on Romans. I think I am clarifying more in my mind where I think he occasionally takes wrong turnings, and reminding myself again how I need to read Paul with much more focus on the OT background.

The most important wrong turn I think Wright makes is in deciding who's side God is on in the metaphorical law-court and is summarised in this quote:

...in Daniel chapter 7 you have exactly this scenario of God as the judge surprisingly vindicating Israel as his oppressed people and judging the wicked beasts who have been attacking her. That is the apocalyptic scenario of the covenantal law-court. Or if you like, the covenant scenario interpreted as a great law-suit. Now of course there are passages in the Old Testament which also speak of God and Israel being at law with one another, but that is essentially a secondary thing.

(Romans in a Week, Lecture 3: Romans 1:1-3:20, Part II)

Again and again, as I read the Prophets I am struck by the opposite. The Prophets, unlike so many other religious people, do not focus on condemning those outside their group and argue how God is on their side against those outside, but rather the opposite. Israel is singled out for the harshest criticism and the most devastating judgements.

Yes, God does promise to take Israel's side against her enemies, but only after he has judged them.

Wright in the same lecture helpfully draws attention to how the Isaiah/Ezekiel quote in 2:24 functions in Paul's argument. Paul backs up his argument that those 'who boast in the law dishonour God by breaking the law' by quoting the Prophets' statement that 'the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you' (Ez 36:23; Is 52:5). When you consider their original context we see that Paul is arguing that the Jews should know that they broke the law because they were sent into exile as judgment by God upon them. But in quoting this passage he is also alluding to God's message in both OT passages that for the sake of his name God is going to redeem his people from the place of being judged by him, to the place of restoration. There is hope on the other side of judgment which has to be grasped by faith.

In the law-court Paul is clear who's side God is on, and it is not ours. God inflicts wrath on us (3:5) not our oppressors. The 'but' of 3:21 is precious though. For God's judgment (his righteousness) is revealed apart from the law, in Christ who died for our trespasses (4:35). God is now 'for us' (8:31).

God's righteousness is a saving righteousness not because our enemies are judged but because we are judged in Christ who was raised for our justification.

Seifrid says it better than me:

justification comes only through condemnation, life only through death. The way in which Paul connects the opening discussion in verse 18 to verse 17 signals this relationship: '...the righteous one shall live by faith, for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven ...' If he had been thinking of a strict antitheses, one would have expected here a concession, an 'even if'. God's saving righteousness is revealed in the gospel precisely because God himself comes to his own righteousness in the cross of Christ. This simultaneous justification of God and the sinner drives Paul's argument in 1:18-3:26. (p. 48, Christ Our Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Justification, Apollos)

Apologies to those who are fed up of me banging on about the same things. But I don't think I will ever tire of it (by God's grace).

Reflecting again on Tom Wright's Paul

Tom Wright has written a new book on Justification, in part to respond to John Piper.

I was listening to Tom Wright on Romans the other day and he observed that 'Righteousness of God' had three dimensions:

1. Covenant
2. Law-court
3. Eschatology

The key to the current debate is that he makes the covenantal dimension of Paul's Righteousness/Justification the 'fundamental' dimension (to quote his lecture). Most of the focus in debate has been on word studies of the dikaiosune (Righteousness/Justification) word group. There are places where this word group seems to be fundamentally covenantal (e.g. Second Isaiah) but the chips are (in my mind) stacked in the traditional interpretation's favour because the language is from the law-court in the first place (at least). To settle things though the debate has to be far wider and involve the whole of Paul's theology and ask: 'where is the centre of Paul's theology?' Once you have answered that as 'the covenant' then you can do as Wright does and 'translate back into covenantal categories' (p.43, Letter to the Romans) any language which is not covenantal in the first place. Of course if the law-court is central then you can do the same in the other direction.

I am persuaded for the moment to give the law-court pole position in this contest (see here for why) but suspect that the answer may be simpler. If you were to ask the mythical average man in the pew what was the centre of Paul's theology he would immediately answer Jesus Christ, or particularly Jesus Christ crucified. And here perhaps is the answer. Neither the law-court nor the covenant are central, they are both interdependent but separate metaphors which are trying to describe something bigger than both of them, that 'in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself'.

In my head I keep on coming back to Mark Seifrid's comment that only in Jesus is there synthesis when 'the election of Israel and the demand of the Law meet in Christ, the crucified and risen. The tension within early Jewish thought between grace and demand was resolved in an event, not a higher idea' (pp. 5-6, 'The "New Perspective on Paul" and Its Problems', Themelios, Issue 25-2). I don't know if Seifrid would agree with how I spin him but there we go.

Again and again, I learn that theologians (and more often I) sometimes lose the wood for the trees. We do so love to replace Christ with an idea.

The Distinctive Mosaic Law

Elizabeth Anscombe has an admirable summary of the distinctiveness of the Mosaic Law:

For example, it greatly heightens his own notion of the paramountcy of God,; it absolutely forbids superstition, 'seeking truth from the dead', concern with omens, soothsaying; if we suppose him [a 'seeker after God'] acquainted with, say, Arabian tribes of the fiercer sort, we can also suppose that he is struck by the prescriptions tending to check the licence and bloody revenge natural among such people; the arrangements tending to make impossible the casual jetttisoning of wives and the killing of those who have suddenly or accidentally killed your relations. for while revenge was forbidden as a matter of personal ethic, it is also made difficult as a matter of public law by the establishment of the cities of refuge. He notes the prohibition on punishing any but the offender - remember that even Roman law, as codified by a Christian Emperor, permitted the destruction of the family and close associates of a man found guilty of treason against the state; but the Mosaic law forbade it. He notes the restriction on stripes as a punishment to forty 'lest thy brother become vile in they sight' - equally astonishing when you think of Roman floggings, or floggings in the British navy up to quite recent times. There is no torture in the Mosaic law: remember again that the Code of Justinian retained the requirement to torture slaves as witnesses. He notes the fact that if you so much as knocked out the tooth of a slave, he was to go free; the asylum to runaway slaves from the nations round about, the prohibition on man-stealing; the provision whereby you could not send a slave or bondman away if he had married in your house and chose to remain; the provisions forbidding persecution of poor debtors. He sees the contrast between the estimation of offences against property [...] and offences against the person and sexual offences.

(italics original, p. 35, 'Prophecy and Miracles' in Faith in a Hard Ground: Essays on Religion, Philosophy and Ethics)

The essay itself is very good, and I think I will read it again and maybe even post a summary.