Random fire

A few random thoughts...

Random thought 1

The choice between Cessationism and Continuationism isn't as simple as most seem to assume. Continuationism can be broken down into:

1. The miraculous gifts continue and you find them in charismatic/pentecostal churches.
2. The miraculous gifts continue and you find them in all sorts of churches. In particular prophecy and healing happen loads in 'conservative' churches, but they just don't recognise them as that.
3. The miraculous gifts continue, but they are very rare and they're not what charismatic/pentecostal churches think they are.

Random thought 2

It is not necessarily a choice between:

1. NT Prophecy does not have the same authority as Scripture so is no threat to the canon; and
2. NT Prophecy does have the same authority as Scripture so if it continues is a threat to the canon.

A third option is:

3. NT Prophecy does have the same authority as Scripture but it is no threat to the canon because authority is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for canonisation. Scripture also needs to be written for all the church at all timex. NT Prophecy could be (usually) for specific people at specific times, much like OT prophecy, so rarely canonisable (to invent a word).

Random thought 3

Is private tongue speaking good for you?

Your answer may depend on how you answer the following:

1. Are Spiritual gifts ever commended for the benefit to the gifted, or are they only for the church who benefits from that person's gifts?
2. Is it possible to edify/build yourself up, and if so should you? I.e. is Paul being sarcastic in 1 Cor 14:4?
3. Is it possible to be edified/built up when the understanding is unfruitful (1 Cor 14:14)?

Random thought 4

Dan Hames' post has been the best food for my soul this week:

My church is unflinchingly Christ-centred. We hear the scriptures preached each week. People from every background are being converted and turning to Jesus. Our members are being discipled and transformed by the gospel of grace. We are led to engage our hearts and affections in worship and in hearing the word. There is genuine confidence in prayer – especially in petition. The Holy Spirit is loved and worshipped as a Person of the Godhead. Our clergy exercise careful discernment and are not afraid to call out false teaching, even if it feels ‘close to home’. I am surrounded by Christlike, humble, kind men and women. At times, pastoral situations and personal needs are identified by the inner prompting and guidance of the Holy Spirit. People who have been sick have been made well through the prayers of others. There is a tangible love for the Lord and a desire to know him more deeply.

The charismatic world is not without its oddities and excesses, but where there is genuine love for Jesus, there is cause to rejoice rather than criticise.

‘I must say that I had rather be among them who, in the actings of their love and affection unto Christ, do fall into some irregularities and excesses in the manner of expressing it, than among those who, professing themselves to be Christians, do almost disavow their having any thoughts of or affection unto the person of Christ.’
John Owen (Works, VII: 346)

According to the Scriptures?

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

But which Scriptures? Initially I could only think of Jonah, but Craig Blomberg (p. 296, 1 Corinthians (NIVAC)) is helpful:

It is less clear which Scriptures point to the resurrection on the third day. Perhaps [although CK Barrett says the Greek does not suggest this] Paul meant only that the Scriptures testified to Christ's resurrection, with passages like Psalms 16:8-11 and 110:1-4 in view (cf. Acts 2:24-36). In that case, "according to the Scriptures" would modify only the verb "raised" and not the phrase "on the third day." But he may also have found some typological significance in the third-day references to God's vindication of his people in such texts as Genesis 42:18. Exodus 19:16, Joshua 2:22, Ezra 8:32, Esther 5:1, Jonah 1:17 (cf. Matt. 12:40), and especially Hosea 6:2.

In a footnote he says that B. de Margerie "demonstrates how the ancient rabbis linked such texts together in an early midrash on Genesis 22:4", which itself may also be a text that Paul had in mind.

I have also heard Mike Reeves mention Genesis 1:11-13 where on the third day the earth brings forth vegetation (life). That seems a plausible text given Jesus' own prediction of his death and resurrection in John 12:24 ("unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit").

UPDATE: As Dave Bish pointed out, Mike Reeves (and others, e.g. Barnabas Lindars), also see a convincing connection between 1 Corinthians 15 and Leviticus 23. In Leviticus 23:9-14 the Israelites are instructed to bring the firstfruits of the harvest to the priest to be waved "the day after the Sabbath", the same day as Jesus rose from the dead as the "firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (1 Corinthians 15:20-23).

What's the difference?

"I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death." (2 Corinthians 7:9-10)

Justin Holcomb recently posted on Calvin's distinction between legal and evangelical repentance. James Torrance (in lectures I don't recommend) says that the section 3.3 of the Institutes dealing with this had a massive influence on him.

Curiously, the flavour of Calvin on repentance is certainly very different to that of Melanchthon. I may post on this again soon once I've thought about it a bit more. But before I do so I thought I may seek some thoughts from everyone. Any ideas on the difference between the two griefs that Paul describes?

Alternatively put, and using the example that was being batted around at the time of the Reformation, one may ask... what was the difference between the grief of Peter over his sin, and the grief of Judas over his? One led to salvation without regret, and the other to death. But why?

More thoughts on the 'one body'

From an email to the friend I am thinking this through with (see my previous post for less developed thoughts).

On reflection I can think of several inter-related reasons why we are 'one body' in Paul's eyes.

We all share:

• 'one bread' (1 Corinthians 10:17)
• 'one baptism' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)
• 'one faith' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one hope' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one God and Father' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Lord' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Spirit' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)

So for Paul the ultimate cause of us being 'one body' is the Trinity (isn't great how Paul refers to all 3 persons in Ephesians 4:4-6?). The promise of the Trinity is communicated (not just mentally) to us by the sacraments, and we embrace the promise contained in the sacraments by faith. The sacraments are promises that we can share in the death of Christ (Romans 6; Ephesians 2:16) but then also share in the same Spirit (a Spirit of life, John 6:63, Romans 8) by which he was raised (Romans 8:11; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44; Mark 1:8; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

I like your observation that 'one body' has a corporal dimension. 'Body' for Paul is closely associated with 'flesh' and death. There is only one death which leads to life and that is Christ's death. His is the only cursed flesh where salvation can still be found. So he is also the 'body' which we need to find ourselves in. However for Paul 'body' is not as negative as 'flesh'/'death' and he is able to talk happily about our 'spiritual body' too (1 Corinthians 15:44).

However returning to our original discussion about where the term originated I think there are only two options:

1. The institution of the Lord's Supper.
2. The OT concept of marriage between God and Israel which Paul picks up and applies to Christ and the Church ('one flesh' is a small step away from 'one body', cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16).

It is interesting how it is difficult to imagine any closer union than either consuming something (food) or sexual union, and this is how the NT so often describes our relationship to Christ. We eat him, and we marry him! Incredible condescension to miserable sinners! He doesn't give gifts from on high, but comes down to us and gives us himself.

1 Corinthians 11:29

Paul writes:

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

My pastor thinks that 'the body' we have to discern is the church. After all Paul's intention in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is to dissuade the church from having divisions, particularly between rich and poor. He wants them to realise that they are one body. It is also supported by the wider context, particularly 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul is going.

I think that it is more likely that 'the body' refers to Christ's presence in the elements of the Lord's Supper (the traditional interpretation). The immediate context is that of eating and drinking, and the previous reference to the 'body' is verse 27 is to the body as the bread. This is not in conflict with Paul's main intention in this passage either because it is just because of the one bread that we share that we divisions are inappropriate.

Paul does not just discuss the Lord's Supper as an example of where divisions in the Corinthian church are evident, but because it is also where he can demonstrate how inappropriate this is.

Note There are actually three possible interpretations of 'the body' that I can think of. They are all possible because they are all interrelated:

• The person of Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ present in the elements of the Lord's Supper
• The church in Christ

The body of Christ

A friend of mine at church today asked a very good question: where does Paul get the concept of the body of Christ from?

It is a very good question because 'the body' is a very 'weird' concept, and secondly, unlike most other concepts in the NT, it does not seem to originate in either the OT or the ancient Mediterranean world.

On reflection there is only one place that it can come from and that is the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. However, it is still quite a leap from the words 'this is my body' to the sophisticated and multi-layered concept that it is so important to Paul and which he assumes the churches he writes to will understand.

I don't know quite how Paul came to add so much colour to the concept but I think he indicates how he made the connection from the Lord's supper to the church in 1 Cor 10:16-17:

The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

For Paul, the reason we are one body is because we all share in one body, and the body in both instances is 'of Christ'. The Lord's Supper forms the community that we are part of.

Of course, it is not the Lord's Supper that is ultimately the cause. It is one of many interconnected causes in different dimensions. We are one body because we have 'one Lord' and 'one God and Father of all', because we share these we have 'one faith' and 'one hope', which are communicated to us by 'one baptism' and 'one bread' (Eph 4:4-6; 1 Cor 10:17; 1 Cor 12:13).

Modern evangelicals tend to be happy to talk about our shared Lord and shared faith which join us together, but are unhappy to talk about the shared sacraments. Ritual is often then shunned as either pointless or even harmful. Others are more than happy to talk about the sacraments but lose sight of the Lord that gave them to us and that there is more come. For them ritual can become all there is and Christ is lost sight of because, for example, the sacrifice is happening 'here and now' which is more important than the 'then'.

Elevation

And after that the Levites shall go in to serve at the tent of meeting, when you have cleansed them and offered them as a wave offering. For they are wholly given to me from among the people of Israel. Instead of all who open the womb, the firstborn of all the people of Israel, I have taken them for myself. (Numbers 8:15-16)

'Wave offering' is a poor translation. As usual the NRSV has it better with 'elevation offering'. This can be defined a "ritual [that] marked a change in ownership of the sacrifice from the offerer to God".

Although offered by Israel though the Levites are already God's following the passover.

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the people of Israel. The Levites shall be mine, for all the firstborn are mine. On the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I consecrated for my own all the firstborn in Israel, both of man and of beast. They shall be mine: I am the Lord.” (Numbers 3:11-13)

Similarly the church offers the sacrifice of their bodies (Romans 12:1). Although they are already God's possession.

You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

There is freedom here though (1 Corinthians 7:22-23).