The day of the Lord

The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night (1 Thes 5:2).

People sleep during the night or stay up getting drunk. Either way they are not alert (v.7).

Christians live in the daytime (v.4), even though for the world it is still dark. They are experiencing the already even though it is not-yet. Therefore, they should be alert for Christ's appearing and doing the things of the day. That doesn't mean having your head in the clouds and being idle, but working (v.12-14)

Tomorrow's Monday, so unglamorous as it sounds, I'll be at the office as a child of the day. Today was the Lord's day, but so is Monday.

Disarmed

Halloween approaches when people make a mockery of the devil, demons and all sorts of evil. Personally, I tend to think it would be a good thing for Christians to participate in, but not non-Christians (much like the Lord's Supper).

For Christians the devil and demons are no kind of threat because they have been 'disarmed' (Col 2:15). The devil's only power is because he is Satan (trans. "the accuser"), and his only weapon is the law with which stands against us. But the debt to the law has been nailed to the cross and cannot be taken down and used again on those in Christ (2:14). So death and the devil have lost their sting because Christ takes the victory that would otherwise be theirs.

So when the devil, or those who join in his game of judging us or accusing us (even our own consciences) need never be taken seriously (Col 2:16). We are free from all judgment of sin and measurement of performance. That message is why Halloween and Reformation Day actually belong together.

[Not quite the same, but do check out Peter Dray and Jim Jordan's thoughts on Halloween, or Justin Holcomb].

Why does God allow suffering?

The job of the Christian apologist is to make that question harder to answer, not easier.

Discuss.

Suffering in this world (and the next) is more horrible than you think, God is more powerful over evil than you can conceive and he is more loving towards you than you can imagine. So... "My God, why have you forsaken me?"

In us and for us

Listening to: Mozart: Don Giovanni

[In] the Lutheran tradition [...] any emphasis on the work of the Spirit "in us" is seen to be in latent competition with the work of Christ "for us", to the point that it sometimes seems that the believer magnifies the freeness of God's grace more as a forgiven but unchanged sinner, than as a man in whom the crucified Saviour has worked his regenerating and renewing change. Lutherans are afraid that if anything happens within us, that happening rather than Christ's work will be seen as the basis of our standing with God.

(p. 26, Thomas A. Smail, The Forgotten Father)

I think that criticism is fair. Two quick observations on the two emphases:

• One is marked by an over-realised eschatology (i.e. high-expectations and dreamy optimism), and the other an under-realised eschatology (i.e. low-expectations and realistic pessimism).
• One is marked by joy and the other by seriousness.

It's not balance that we need, but a church aware of both where its citizenship is, but also where it is sojourning in at the moment.

The Forgotten Father

we have had in recent years a Jesus movement and a charismatic movement. The one has almost disappeared and the other is threatening to run out of steam, perhaps because each is in a different way inadequate to the gospel, which is basically a Father movement... It starts not with the cross of Jesus or with the gift of the Spirit, but with the Father who so loved the world that he gave his Son in his Spirit. And it achieves its purpose, not when the body of Christ is gloriously renewed in very part without spot or wrinkle (Ephesians 5:27), not even when the enthroned Christ has subdued all his enemies and brought every knee to bow before him (Philipians 2:11), but rather when that same Christ "hands over the kingdom to the Father, after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power" (1 Corinthians 15:24). "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28).

(p.20, Thomas A. Smail, 1980, The Forgotten Father)

I like Tom Smail. He ought to be more widely read. His Charismatic Anglican Trinitarian Theology has a lightness of touch, while retaining real depth, which is really refreshing.

Considering those verses from 1 and 2 Corinthians it is striking that the Father is involved not just at the beginning and end but in the middle where he is the one who puts everything under Jesus' feet.

Gospel & Culture: A Faith and Work Conference

Redeemer, NY has arranged some big name lecturers to talk about the Gospel and Culture. Video here, or audio here. Looks fascinating.

• After You Believe - N.T. Wright
• Why Business Matters to God - Jeff Van Duzer
• Creating Power - Andy Crouch
• Why Work Matters - Dr. Timothy J. Keller
• Art Matters for God's Sake - Adrienne Chaplin
• Natural Law, God, and Human Dignity - Robert P. George
• Challenging the Darkness - Towards a New Christian Renaissance - Os Guinness
• Culture As Liturgy - James K. A. Smith
• Faith-Based Diplomacy: Bridging the Religious Divide - Douglas Johnston

Faith then love

Listening to: Bach: Violin Concertos (Hahn)

Love can only be fruit, it cannot take the place of the tree of faith. But there is a constant attempt in the legal scheme to substitute love for faith [...]

[In] Luke's story of the woman in the house of a Pharisee who anointed Jesus' feet from an alabaster jar. The Pharisee, Simon, was found outstripped by the woman not only in faith, but also in his pride - the righteousness of the law (which is love). Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace" (Luke 7:50). Her faith came from the preached word heard earlier: "Your sins are forgiven," and this finally revealed what Jesus meant when he told Simon, "Her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love" (Luke 7:47). Love, it turns out, is either understood in relation to the law - in which case it is a work and cannot bear our trust - or it is simply what happens when Christ has forgiven a sinner.

(pp.235-236, Steven Paulson, Lutheran Theology)

So, when we preach the law, we tell people to "love the Lord your God". But when we preach the Gospel we call people to "believe the Lord your God", and out of that belief (which is receiving the seed of the promise of God himself and his forgiveness) love springs spontaneously. Love is greater because love is the eternal goal (1 Cor 13:13), but it cannot be found without faith receiving the Spirit in the promise of Christ who creates it.

Christ present in the preached word

the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim)...Jesus is Lord

(Romans 10:6-9)

Paul is arguing that by faith we find Christ present in the preached word we hear from our pastors, evangelists and missionaries. So Christ is not a distant goal to be attained to, or in the first instance somebody who has walked the way of the perfect life for you to follow, instead he is here for us to confess and call upon and be saved. If we have a preacher, Christ is never distant, but in our hearts, and because he cannot be contained we find him overflowing our hearts through our mouths.

Paul used Deuteronomy 30 "the word is near you," just this way. Moses' original use of this word concerned the law, and he thought it meant there was no longer any need to go find the law in a voyage over the sea or going down to the depths since now it had come near in the tablets of stone. But for Paul [...] "up" and "down" describe Christ's ascent into heaven and descent into hell. this is the crucial matter of the presence of Christ around which all of Lutheran theology circulates. Descent into hell is legally inappropriate for the infinite God, and ascent into heaven is impossible for a finite man. The communication of attributes nevertheless accomplished both at once. Christ's ascent into heaven is normally taken as "escape" or absence, consequently whenever Christ's presence is considered following his "humiliation" (as theology calls Christ's descent) and his "exaltation" (to the right hand of the Father) it is spiritualized in a pagan sense. Christ's body is removed from his presence, and more importantly, God himself is removed from the word that is preached... Where is Christ now?... where Moses law once was: "the word is near you... that is, the word we preach" (Romans 10:8)

(pp. 226-227, Steven Paulson, Lutheran Theology)

For more on the preached word try Glen Scrivener's seminars.

Christ on the brain

Death is not defeated by having you avert it, but undergo it in the flesh, and then the Spirit raises our dead bodies - because when he sees the baptized dead, he sees only Christ and cannot resist raising him...

the Holy Spirit's proper work is given a Christological fixation. It is not your human goal that matters any longer, but the Holy Spirit's goal. Your goal is flesh, and flesh is hostile to God; the Spirit's goal is "life and peace" because the Spirit's goal is Christ alone. If Christ is in you, the Spirit raises your dead bodies to life since the Holy Spirit has Christ on the brain. In opposition to this, spiritualism seeks to unlink the Spirit from Christ in order to bypass the cross in its immediate relation to God, but the Spirit's proper work never goes anywhere without Christ, and does nothing apart from resurrecting Christ. The Holy Spirit does not moonlight in another job than to witness, show, and drive everything in the universe to Christ.

(pp. 196-197, Steven Paulson, Lutheran Theology)

He's not quite PT Forsyth, but Paulson really does have a nice turn of phrase.

Where do we go from here?

Listening to: Handel: Balshazzar (Pinnock)

Correct me if I'm wrong...!

Where do the Biblical writers go from when they meditate on God's works? In particular where do they go after thinking on the cross and resurrection?

Occasionally they go backwards: "If Christ died on a cross then in eternity past [fill in the blank]".

Sometimes they go upwards: "If Christ died on a cross then God must be [fill in the blank]"

Most often they go forwards: "If Christ died on a cross then now/in the future [fill in the blank]."

I can't really do a scientific survey but I think that's right. Do you agree? Does it make a difference?

I would argue that it means that we need to deal more in promises than revelation (although both indwell each other).

A thought prompted by a unknown questioner in Glen's excellent course.

Expressions

Glory is the expression of someone by their love.

A word is the expression someone by their breath (Heb: ruach).

The Son is the expression of God the Father by his Spirit.

Michelangelo and glory

Who is greater, Michelangelo or Lorenzo de' Medici?

Lorenzo was the patron of Michelangelo, so in the act of paying Michelangelo he gave glory to the artist. Is the one who receives the glory or the one who gives it the more glorious?

Michelangelo is more glorious because the glory that he receives was only recognising the glory of the genius that he already possessed. That is why Michelangelo is remembered and glorified by millions today, and Lorenzo remembered less often and less admiringly.

God the Father gave glory to the Son. The glory that the Father gave was a recognition of the glory that the Son already possessed, so you may argue that the Son is more glorious. However, unlike Michelangelo, Jesus received even his 'inherent' glory from the Father who gave him life. So when Jesus received glory from the Father he gives it back. It is as if Lorenzo was not just Michelangelo's patron but his teacher. If that were the case Lorenzo would glorify Michelangelo by commissioning work from him, but receive back the glory as Michelangelo admitted that he learnt all he knew from Lorenzo. As a consequence as Michelangelo's fame increased so would Lorenzo's. In fact, you could say Michelangelo was the glory (or 'pride') or Lorenzo.

In contrast, we receive glory from the Son, but not in recognition of glory we already possess but as an incomprehensible gift of grace. All the glory we do receive is a gift from the Son and so we admit that before the world and give him back the glory - and through him the Father.

... that was a bit all over the place but hopefully you get the drift.

Why the doctrine of the Trinity is hard

Glen says that the doctrine of the Trinity is simple: it's just three persons united in love.

Glen argues that the reason we tie ourselves in knots is because we try to reconcile the 'omnibeing' with the Trinity: an impossible task because the two are not the same.

I'm thankful to Glen and others for giving me a crash course in the doctrine of the Trinity a few years ago and for continuing to teach me. Before, the doctrine was largely a maths problem I couldn't solve, but now I understand it far better than I did. Nevertheless, I still don't think I really understand the Trinity.

In part the problem is metaphysical, but more substantial is the failure of my imagination and experience. Three persons united in love don't exist in the world in which we live. Perfect, self-giving love is something I can barely grasp. I know and have experienced amazing love in relationships, family and church, but the more I know love the more I see how deeply broken it often is. I suspect those of you who are married can list off as many ways in which you are disunited as united, just as I can with my family and friendships. And the church is no exception in its present fractured-yet-united state. So until the sinless new creation I don't think I will ever be able to say that three persons united in love is simple.

In summary, the 'problem' of the Trinity lies not in logic but sin. If you do have a problem with the logic, then its probably not the Trinity you have a problem with.

Active passivity

a rescuing deity results in gratitude, never in expanded humanity. Constant gratitude, which the story of the cross seems to encourage, creates only weakness, childishness and dependency.

(Bishop Spong cited in DA Carson, The God Who is There)

Sadly Bishop Spong sees that as a reason to reject the cross while Christianity sees it as a reason to embrace the cross and celebrate weakness, childishness and dependency. And yet Spong is right to have some concerns because the Bible also celebrates strength and maturity.

I think the Bible celebrates both because Coram Deo (toward God) we are weak, childish and dependent, but that means that Coram Mundum (toward the world) we are strong, mature and live independent of a need for the world's blessing.

I presume Spong is afraid of Christians who 'drop out' and become passive in the world because they have been saved by God. In contrast, Luther loved the God who rescued him when he couldn't man-up and rescue himself. He saw that God's rescue would meant those rescued would become like their God. In his teaching on two kinds of righteousness, he would strongly emphasise that we are passive Coram Deo as we receive with gratitude from our Father. But, precisely because of that we become active people Coram Mundum as we seek to serve others.

Union with Christ's death

Listening to: Mozart: Mass in C Minor

I think Steven Paulson's book Lutheran Theology is much stronger rhetorically and substantively in describing death, sin and alienation than life, righteousness and reconciliation. That's a real shame. I think it is also true to say that as an introduction to Lutheran theology the book is pretty dire. Despite that it is compelling reading because he can say true things in a very striking way.

Baptism into Christ is an even more offensive claim than "you have died." It says your baptism is unity with Christ, and that unity is first a unity with his death [...] Christ takes the sinner's sin, but the exchange that takes place does not leave the recipient as she was - only without sin. The sins were not just possessions of mine, but they were me. They were not appendages, but my very heart [...] For this reason the first exchange with Christ is death. Christ does not offer an escape from sin and death, like the Gnostics dreamed about, but he came down from heaven into sinners, under them, and suffered to take the sins - and with them he took "me" - or my heart [...] Christ took the world's sin including my own, even in his own body, and became a curse on the cross. I cannot reclaim as my property those old sins by the old theory of distributive justice - though strangely this is precisely what sinners desire. Sin is a matter of the heart, and when sins are removed from a sinner the heart just manufactures more like the government mint printing money. The value of money, it is said, depends upon trust in the government that stands behind it. For this reason an unfaithful heart cannot merely be cleaned off in the way soap removes dirt from the hands [...]

Christ's death on the cross took the sins of the world, but this must now be preached and given so that the person no longer remains more-or-less intact after sin is removed - endlessly able to produce false trust in idols. That heart, and so the entire person to his or her roots, must die to sin, just as Christ did on the cross. A heart after all is more than just the organ of love (as the world supposes) in the form of erotic love, it is the source of faith and so unfaith in idolatry. To destroy Adam's heart and receive the new heart in Christ, God uses nothing else but the instruments of his words preached to a sinner that are first given in baptism.

(pp. 158-160)

Stockholm Syndrome and the French Underground

Steven Paulson does have a great turn of phrase sometimes. Take these for a few examples:

"Christ gave this description when he said in Mark 3:27, that the Strong Man must be bound before his house can be pillaged, and Christ had come to do just that. Yet, it is an odd reality, called in the modern world the "Stockholm syndrome," that prisoners identify themselves with their captors, and even desire in their hearts to be imprisoned to them" (p.159, Lutheran Theology)

"Being a theologian of the cross means the Christian's life is hid under the sign of its opposite (death, bondage, suffering) so that the prisoner of sin has now become the French underground, the embedded terrorist to the body of sin, and so faith is not the end of struggle but its beginning." (p. 171, ibid)

Last words

In the last few months of his life Karl Barth was on a radio program which was a bit like Desert Island Discs ("Music for a Guest – A radio Broadcast"). The transcript can be found in the book Final Testimonies.

Near the beginning of the program he states that "What I hear in Mozart is a final word about life insofar as this can be spoken by man". Therefore, perhaps it is appropriate that he ends the program with this brilliant paragraph about God's Word about life in Christ, and Mozart's music addressed to the Word.

Grace itself is only a provisional word. The last word that I have to say as a theologian or politician is not a concept like grace but a name: Jesus Christ. He is grace and he is the ultimate one beyond world and church and even theology. We cannot lay hold of him. But we have to do with him. And my own concern in my long life has been increasingly to emphasize this name and to say: "In him." There is no salvation but in this name. In him is grace. In him is the spur to work, warfare, and fellowship. In him is all that I have attempted in my life in weakness and folly. It is there in him. I suggest then that we finish with Mozart as a sacred composer. I myself have always been very fond of the little Missa Brevis in D Major, again by the young Mozart... I suggest that we play the conclusion: Agnus dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis, dona nobis pacem: "O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us, grant us thy peace". This is what we shall now hear.

Enjoy!

God who offers too little or too much to the sufferer

I believe that one of the most important discoveries of Trinitarian theology in our time is the discovery of the suffering love of the suffering triune God. All cheap and easy talk about a God of sovereign power who is in control of a world in which there is so much poverty, suffering and injustice is obscene... The only gospel that makes sense and can help in what Moltmann calls our "godless and godforsaken" world is the good news of a god who loves enough to suffer with and for a suffering humanity.

But such a gospel, especially as it has caught on and become popular, has its dangers too. Too much talk about the "presence" of God in "solidarity" with suffering can become a way of hiding a deep skepticism about whether God is powerful enough to do anything about their suffering... People who suffer for one reason or another want more than just "God suffers with you and we Christians do too." They want to know whether there are a God and a people of God who can and will do anything to help them. Whether they know it or not, they want to hear about and experience the good news of a Trinitarian God who wills and preserves life, who liberates oppressed people from whatever or whoever oppresses them. They want to hear about and experience a crucified and risen Christ who is stronger than the powers of sickness, suffering, sin, and death. They want to hear about and experience the power of the Holy Spirit who brings new life where there is death and new beginnings where there are dead ends.

One of the biggest problems in theology today is how we can find our way between a theology of the suffering love of God that offers too little and a theology of the sovereign power of God that promises too much. I believe that the solution lies in thinking through the implications of what we said earlier about faith in the sovereignty of God as hope for the future - faith that God's loving and just will will be done.

(italics original, pp. 53-54, Shirley Guthrie, Always being reformed: faith for a fragmented world)

I just stumbled across this quotation by accident. It is from a man who turns out to be a significant American mainline Presbyterian. I think it is a great reflection of someone who has thought and lived deeply.

As I mused on it it struck me that the measure of whether we believe that God is both these things is prayer. You do not pray to someone who you think does not sympathise with your condition, but also you don't pray to someone who you think can do nothing about it. Therefore, one of the best ways we can communicate to a sufferer that God is both sympathetic and is powerful is praying for/with them.

Hearing is believing - at least in this age

"Faith is in something, it needs some-thing to believe; specifically it lives from an incarnate and crucified promise, who is none other than Christ, the promised Messiah." (p.199, Paulson, Lutheran Theology)

"Faith is never without a thing in which it trusts; but when faith's "thing" is a promise from God whose "yes" is Christ, then it has something that "counts" before God. Christ counts before God - not as a token of law, but quite apart from the law since the Father gives everything to the Son, and the Son gives everything back freely" (p. 122)

"Faith does not stand upon what it feels or sees; it is only an ear and the ear listens solely to Christ" (p.136)

"In faith we do not see glory; instead we see suffering, and if that were not enough, by the seventh chapter of Romans, Paul says we feel and see in our own flesh the very sin that Christ is promised to have taken and defeated. Everything promised to faith seems to be taken away immediately in experience: glory turns to suffering; seeing turns to hearing; resurrection to dying" (p.141)

"Boasting in a hope that is not yet seen is exercising a freedom of speech that the world does not know by means of suffering God's love - not being attracted to it" (p.148)

Paulson's Lutheranism is sadly an under-realised version which is clearer on death than resurrection. In that it stands in bold contrast with a contemporary Christian culture that is dominated by an over-realised eschatology. I will never forget Dick Lucas' comment that Christians today are great at speaking about faith and love, but poor at hope. We are profoundly a this-worldly church and yet simultaneously world-despising church because we do not look to the future through the past in Christ (not just for salvation but revelation).

Christ is what was promised (so we do see him) but also the promise of the future (which we hear of and do not yet see). You could say we see in a mirror dimly!

To say that we see Christ's loveliness clearly is to teach sinless perfectionism and that the resurrection has already happened (2 Tim 2:18). On the other hand to say that we only see the ugly crucified man who bids us die and not the loveliness of the resurrected Saviour that bids us live is to deny the new-birth and presence of the Spirit.

[Very rough notes... maybe I'll write a post soon... but long work-days are catching up on me]

The parable of the Great Banquet

I was chatting today with a friend who is preaching on the Parable of the Great Banquet in Luke 14:15-23 soon.

It's a popular passage, and rightly so. It beautifully depicts the free offer of the Gospel and the celebratory and joyful nature of the Kingdom of God. However, from Luke 14:15-23 alone you could easily gloss over the brief mention of anger and preach the Gospel as a nice invitation to a party that is worth accepting, but that if you choose to try out your oxen or spend time with your wife then that's okay. You're missing out, but each to his own.

Matthew's account in 22:1-14 is a bit more chilling. In his account the servant carrying the invitation is killed and the king responds by destroying the murderers and burning their city. A guy then turns up without a wedding garment and is cast out into the outer darkness. There is still a party, but I suspect Luke's account is the more popular one today.

But my friend pointed out that Luke's account in chapter 14 follows chapter 13 which includes some stark warnings of its own. For example, Jesus in verse 22 is the servant carrying the invitation by preaching the through the towns and villages. He is the door into the Kingdom of God, but there will be a time when the door will be shut and people will plead to enter but will not be admitted. Outside the house he says there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' but inside there will be feasting (vv. 28-29).

Luke's Jesus is not the 'nice' Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke depict a Jesus who preaches judgement to come. Very sobering for me to be reminded.

Justification = adoption

I think justification is an under-appreciated doctrine, and that's partly because it has been cut off from Jesus.

Justification is not just being forgiven and having the slate wiped clean. It is not only 'just-as-if-I've-never-sinned', but it is also not 'just-as-if-I-had-lived-a-perfect-life'. Actually, its 'just-as-if-I-was-Jesus'.

Among other things, this means that justification is not a necessary step to being adopted as sons. In fact, I may be as bold to say that justification = adoption.

Jesus was justified by God in his resurrection from the dead (Rom 4:25; 1 Tim 3:16). The Jews, and God the Father through them, declared him a sinner. God the Father by the Spirit then raised him from the dead, overturning their verdict and declaring him righteous (Acts 2:3-24).

But in the covenantal context righteousness is not just doing good according to the natural law (although it is not less than that), it is being the people God called Israel to be - and God called Israel to be his son (Ex 4:22; Rom 9:4). Sadly, instead they acted like sons of Satan and crucified the one who not only called God Father, but by his life showed himself to be God's only Son. So, when God the Father raised Jesus from the dead he declared him to be the Son of God in power (Rom 1:4).

If we are united in Christ by Baptism in faith then that same declaration of God the Father over Jesus as he came out of his water-Baptism 'grave' and his blood-Baptism grave is declared over us as well (Matt 3:17). We are sons in whom the Father is well pleased!

So, don't downplay justification, or teach it reductionistically, but celebrate it in all it's riches!

Serpent crushing

"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
hhe shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15)

Ed Clowney just taught me that Satan's quotation of Psalm 91:11-12 when tempting Jesus is significant in a surprising way. It is significant not just because he was quoting Scripture, and quoting Scripture in a Christocentric way that found Christ in David's psalm, but also for the context of the verses.

Like so many of us Satan knew when to stop the quote when it got to the bit that made him uncomfortable. However, for Jesus knowing what came next must have been a great encouragement to resist Satan's temptation because if he was the Messiah of verses 11-12 he was also the Messiah for whom it was promised:

"You will tread on the lion and the adder;
the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot." (v.13)

The good news for us is that although all the promises find their "yes" in Jesus, he does not cling onto what is his but shares this birth-right to those he is not ashamed to call his brothers. For this reason, contrary to what you may expect, the only direct references to treading on serpents in the NT (correct me if I'm wrong) are about Christians rather than Christ!

"I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you." (Luke 10:19)

"The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." (Romans 16:20a)

Because Jesus defeated Satan in his temptation, when Israel and Adam had both failed to, we can share in his victory no matter how tempting the sin or powerful the enemy.

All sin

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us (2 Cor 5:21)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Gal 3:13)

Sometimes a person is so associated with something that we stop using an adjective and use the substative. A body builder can, at a certain point, cease "having muscles" and we call him "all muscle." Christ becomes so exclusively associated with sin that it loses any sense for anyone else, and we say of him not only that he is a sinner, but the Sinner.

(p. 108, Steven Paulson, Lutheran Theology)

Wow!

A thief in the night

Less than an hour after I read Dave Bish's post saying that Jesus gives and doesn't take, I read this:

Christ is determined not to stop until he has taken everything of yours. He comes as a thief in the night, and thieves not only surprise us with their untimely arrival, but actually rob us of our possessions. Jesus robs us of our best stuff - our righteous deeds by the law, our good hopes that things will work out (with a little grace), and the belief that God will find us pleasing on our own account - but he also robs us of our worst...Jesus exchanges his priceless worth for our filth.

(p. 106, Steven Paulson, Lutheran Theology)

It reminds me of the legend of someone walking up to Luther and saying, "do you really mean that I have nothing whatsoever to contribute to my salvation?" And Luther supposedly answering, "I'm very sorry if I have given that impression. There's lots you can contribute. Your greed, your lust, your anger...."

It is shocking that Christ is an unusual king who gives lavishly of all that he has, but only after he has become a servant and taken our place and received our due. The good news and the offense are so tied together.

[Incidentally, when I read the Paulson quote I did wonder whether he was using the expression 'thief in the night' out of its biblical context, but when you look at 1 Thessalonians 5 the day of the Lord that comes like a thief does bring destruction and rob everyone of everything. But with the armour that belongs to God, which he gives us, we will come through the destruction to life and salvation with him.]

God is dead

Interesting factoid of the day... Hegel popularised the phrase "God is dead", but probably picked it up from the second verse of this hymn, which in the original German says "God himself is dead". Nietzche then took it from Hegel. It's a suitably bleak Good Friday hymn that was very popular in Germany.

1. O darkest woe!
Ye tears, forth flow!
Has earth so sad a wonder?
God the Father's only Son
Now is buried yonder.

2. O sorrow dread!
God's Son is dead!
But by His expiation
Of our guilt upon the cross
Gained for us salvation.

3. O sinful man!
It was the ban
Of death on thee that brought Him
Down to suffer for thy sins
And such woe hath wrought Him.

4. Lo, stained with blood,
The Lamb of God,
The Bridegroom, lies before thee,
Pouring out His life that He
May life restore thee.

5. O Ground of faith,
Laid low in death.
Sweet lips. now silent sleeping!
Surely all that live must mourn
Here with bitter weeping.

6. Oh. blest shall be
Eternally
Who oft in faith will ponder
Why the glorious Prince of Life
Should be buried yonder.

7. O Jesus blest,
My Help and Rest
With tears I now entreat Thee:
Make me love Thee to the last,
Till in heaven I greet Thee!

Unknown, 1628, Stanza 1
Author: Johann Rist, 1641, ab, Stanzas 2-7
Translated by: Catherine Winkworth, 1863, alt.

Justifying Job

Job, is one of many Biblical books that I struggle to understand. But here is one take on it you don't often hear... it's a book about justification!

• The opening scene: the great accuser (trans. Satan) appears before God. God justifies his servant Job, declaring him righteous before Satan, but Satan declares God's verdict to be false (not for the first, or last time). Satan de-justifies God.
• The dialogue between the 3 friends and Job: The friends take on Satan's accusing role and reason like this:
  • God is just + Job is suffering => Job is unjust
  Job works with similar logic, but to his credit only toys with the conclusion and doesn't commit to it:
  • I am just + I am suffering => God is unjust
• Elihu: Elihu is a bit difficult to pin down. He recognises that Job is trying to justify himself by de-justifying God. He justifies God himself, but he doesn't justify Job. He anticipates God's speeches, but he only has some light to shed on Job's confusing darkness.
• God's speeches: God has two points in his two speeches:
  1. Give up on your logic-games. Job is just and I am just. How those are both true you will never be able to fathom by reason... so give up the quest.
  2. I control the accuser who brings suffering, so there is hope in me as the only one who can tame the leviathan of Satan.
• The epilogue: Job repents, God justifies Job before his friends and the whole world. He declares him righteous and justly gives the blessings of wealth and health which belong to the righteous.

I've blogged about this a little before, so I'll be bold and quote myself saying it quite well!

Elihu was angry with Job because he was 'justifying himself rather than God' (32:2) and YHWH isn't too happy about that either (40:8). But actually Elihu admits that he wants to justify Job (33:32) and YHWH does so in the end too (42:7). Job is justified through YHWH's own justification. Only when YHWH is allowed to be just in a way above human comprehension, can we too be justified.

The power of love

Some half-baked musings...

Some people argue that saying the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son depersonalises the Spirit. Other people argue that saying the Glory of God is the Son personalises God's glory. I don't think you can have it both ways, although I think there is truth to both. It depends whether the controlling definition of 'love' or 'glory' comes from the Triune God revealed in the Christ of the Scriptures. If it is not then the Father, Son and Holy Spirit will be all be depersonalised, but if not then personality will overflow into those terms and out into our lives. Personally I'm all for saying the Spirit is the love of God as Augustine did, arguing from 1 John 4:7-16 and Romans 5:5.

Having said that, in the Bible the Spirit is more closely linked with strength and power than anything else. In which case we should not pit power against love, but find how actually true divine power is loving, and true divine love is powerful.

If there is a more common biblical association with the Spirit than power it must be life. Life is marked by love and power. Desires and actions can be disordered or wrongly directed, but as long as we live we are desiring and acting creatures.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results

Most financial products come with the warning:

past performance is no guarantee of future results

House prices may have gone up the last 5 years, but that doesn't mean they will this year. From mere facts, we can make educated guesses about the future, but there is always at least an undercurrent of fear because of the uncertainty.

This is what life is like without a preacher, and was the disadvantage suffered by the Gentiles until the missionaries came (Romans 3:1)...

Jews have a preacher, many preachers in fact, and so they have been given God's words. The Gentiles had none, until Paul - Apostle - and thus before the preacher arrived they were reduced to investigating a fallen creation for clues as to who their hidden God was (Paul found them in Athens worshipping a statue that said, "To the unknown God"). Usually God is known by his mighty acts of the past so that even the Gentiles could learn something of God this way. The words that gave Jews an advantage in life were promises by which God could be known in terms of the future...When one is able to trust God by means of a word one speaks very differently to him - in the way husband and wife speak to one another as opposed to the way an advertisement addresses an unknown client.

(pp.54-55, Steven Paulson, Lutheran Theology)

Sadly, many unreached peoples are still in the same situation. Trembling at the sound of a falling leaf (as both Calvin and Luther said).