Quotable: Longenecker on Galatians

In view of [the] profile of the agitators [judizers], it is tempting to think that Paul's letter to the Galatian Christians deals primarily with the issue of 'the law', not least since this seems to be the issue that has overwhelmed the Galatian communities. Such an impression, however, requires some qualification. While the Galatian Christians; regard for the law provoked Paul to write much on the subject, his deliberations on nomistic observance are framed within the context of prior convictions about the nature of Christian personal and corporate life. In particular, he surveys the Christian life in relation to two dimensions: a temporal and a qualitative dimension. With reference to the qualitative dimension, Paul demonstrates the Christian life to be intrinsically marked our by Christ-likenesss; in this context, his case relies on a portrait of self-giving as the essential component of Christian lifestyle.

Of these two dimensions, it is arguably the qualitative dimension, which focuses on cruciform lifestyle, that forms the backbone of the theological body of the letter. If that claim is over-stated it is only slightly so. Paul's strategy in Galatians is most effective when he exploits the full scope of the qualitative dimension. Although he employs various arguments concerning the law in Galatians, Paul's finest deliberations on the subject are informed by a belief that cruciform existence is intrinsic to Christian identity and is the most intimate form of relationship with God. Paul's instructions about the law follow in the wake of this pre-determined vision of Christian moral identity.

(pp. 65-66, Bruce Longenecker, ‘Galatians’, in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)

While I don't think Longenecker is spot on, he has an important point. After all Paul's argument (I think) hinges on vv. 3:1-9:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?

Faith is central in this passage, but so is the Spirit, and so by implication so is a transformed, cruciform, life.

Glorification

'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (Rom 3:23)

I think the word 'so' should be included in there for to get Paul's meaning: 'All have sinned and [so] fall short of the glory of God' (cf. 2:7; 2:10). But the universality of this statement makes it strange that later Paul says that to Israel 'belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises' (9:4). And later still we find that there are those, 'not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles', which are prepared for glory (9:24). How is this so? Has Paul forgotten what he said in 3:23.

3:24, following on from the famous verse of universal condemnation, continues by saying that the same sinners: 'are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus'. Great stuff, but another question arises: what does it really mean to be 'glorified'? I think that (considering Romans 8, 9:4, 9:26 - as expanding on 9:23) the answer must be adoption. That is, to be made into the image of God's Son (to be 'in Christ Jesus'), and to enjoy his privileges - foremost among which is access to the Father.

Sorry for the ramble... but it came into my head to meander through Romans, following the word 'glory'.

It took blood and guts

2 Chron. 4

2 Chronicles 4 is a description of the temple furnishings. Previously the thing that has most stuck me about these descriptions is the ostentatiously lavish nature of the temple and the objects that filled it. This is certainly very important to the author, and points us to the glory of the God, that the furnishing attempts to mirror and honour. But reading the passage today all I could think of was blood. Almost all of the temple furniture is tied to the shedding of blood... to the butchering of animals. Of course I had always known it but I only really thought about it today - the temple courtyard must have stunk to high heaven (no pun intended).

The humongous sea, and the ten large basins, are described being used for washing by the priests. Exodus 30:17-21 makes clear that priests are to wash their hands before offering up the dead animal, but I don't think we should think of what goes on in Mosques, or RC churches. OT priests killed the animal before offering it up in the temple courts (not on the altar), and so no doubt would have been caked in blood which needed to be cleaned up before approaching a holy God. As well as the washing there were shovels, to deal with the mess left behind by the butchering and fire.

What can we learn about our God from something like this?

I remember a bible study in Hebrews from when I was in Poland when the leader proudly declared that today we were going to talk about 'BLOOD'. I think it was Hebrews 9 which contains 12 references to the word. Not very spiritual is it? The author of Hebrews declares:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (9:22)

But Hebrews 9 is immensely concerned with spiritual things, as were the OT priests. They were concerned with how sinful people like us could enter the presence of God. The incredible personal sacrifice that animal sacrifices meant to the people of Israel, and the bloody way in which they were administered, showed how seriously difficult the priests thought this was. But as Hebrews points out even this costly arrangement did not really achieve anything spiritually lasting. The horrendous butchery of the OT was only ended by the even more horrendous killing of the Son of God.

Such is the seriousness of our sin. Trembling is in order. But also faithful rejoicing.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (9:11-14)

How my thoughts on Paul's mission developed - a response to Peter Dray

Following my previous post on Paul's missionary strategy, Peter Dray (old friend and UCCF staffworker) made a bible reference packed comment. Foolishly he asked me to let him know how my thoughts develop, and this lead to the following obscenely long post...

Introduction (!)

In Acts Paul’s role as Apostle to the Gentiles is established by the risen Jesus’ declaration Ananias that ‘ he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel’ (Acts 9:15 – pointed out by Peter Dray).

My previous post should not be taken to be a denial of Paul’s mission to spread the gospel to the gentiles, but rather that he did not seek to achieve this through a pragmatic approach of preaching in cities where his voice would carry the furthest. I think it more likely that he fulfilled his mission to the gentiles, strangely to our Gentile Christian ears, by prioritising his preaching towards the Jews. Although this may be strange to our thinking it fits perfectly with the biblical storyline of how God sought to bring about the redemption of the world, the blessing of the nations, through the prioritising of (the electing of) one man (Abraham) and one people (the Jews). In the Old Testament the Jews were ‘entrusted with the oracles of God’ (Rom 3:2) but not for their salvation only, but for the nations too. Paul’s missionary strategy was rooted in the conviction that he must follow God’s method of bringing salvation to the world, un-pragmatic and foolish as it may seem to the world. And this meant not short-circuiting the Jews but entrusting them with the good news of Jesus, the King of the Jews, for the good of the gentiles.

A wander through Acts

The first two ‘missions’ of Paul in Damascus and Jerusalem, immediately following his commission, involve preaching to the Jews only. Sadly though, in common with many Jews throughout Paul’s ministry both the Jews of Damascus and the Greek-speaking Jews of Jerusalem reject God in Christ, and seek to kill Paul.

In Antioch (Acts 11) we have the first example of Paul preaching to gentiles as well as Jews, following others example, although not much detail is given of how this came about. At Salamis in Cyprus we only have record of him preaching ‘in the synagogues of the Jews’. In Paphos Paul and Barnabas’ reputation proceeds them and a gentile proconsul summands them so he can hear the word of God (Acts 11).

In Pisidian Antioch he teaches in the synagogue and is initially well received. In his teaching he makes a distinction between the rulers of the Jews who have rejected Jesus, and the Diaspora Jews (11:26). As in Cyprus, his preaching in the synagogue does not mean that word does not spread beyond the Jews, and the next Sabbath ‘the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord’. Sadly this fills the Jews with Jealousy, because of their possessiveness of God, a theme Paul picks up in Romans.

Paul then declares:

"It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you [Jews]. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,

"‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’" (Acts 13:46-47)

Much as we may not understand why Paul would seek to preach first to the Jews, for Paul it is not a preference but a necessity. The Jews rejection of the gospel he preaches is a rejection of their God-given calling, as well as God himself. Isaiah 49:6 that he cites declares Israel’s vocation to bring salvation to the ends of the earth, they have rejected this vocation in their reaction to the crowds seeking the light declared by Paul. The light is no longer Israel, it is now the church, the body of Christ, and so Christ himself. God’s purposes have not been frustrated even though not all Israel are Israel, in fact the Jews rejection leads to salvation going to the gentiles as Paul now turns his missionary efforts to them. However as he told the Jews in Pisidian Antioch just because one group of Jews have rejected Jesus, this does not mean he gives up on them all and no longer thinks that he should speak the word of God first to the Jews in other cities.

In Iconium we only hear of them teaching in the synagogue, although both Jews and Greeks turn to Christ. At Lystra, Paul hears a man and this acts as a catalyst so that they preach the gospel to the gentiles there. In Philippi a few ‘chance’ events over just a few days lead to the gospel being proclaimed to, and received by, gentiles in the city. In Thessalonica ‘as was his custom’ (17:2) Paul preaches in the synagogue until the Jews rouse a mob and he has to escape the city. ‘When they arrived [in Berea] they went into the Jewish synagogue’ (17:10) too and received a much better reception. Athens is the only occasion I could find in Acts were the synagogue was not the centre of Paul’s missionary work for while he ‘reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons’ he also taught ‘in the marketplace every day’ and on invitation also in the Areopagus. Perhaps this disproves my contention but I actually think the exception proves the rule – but then I would.

In Corinth normality is restored and ‘he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks’ (18:4). But again, the Jews oppose him and he declares that from ‘now on I will go to the Gentiles’. And again, this strong opposition is not imputed to Jews of other cities and in Ephesus he spends three months in the synagogue before being forced to start a separate church because of opposition.

Peter Dray’s comments

Pete raises 1 Thess 1:7-8 which describes the influence of the church in Thessalonica (a important city of the region), and Acts 16:12 which mentions that Phillipi was a leading city of Macedonia. These both show that the cities Paul spent time in were important cities, and this may well be why Paul chose to visit them, but we have no evidence of this in the NT. However, we do have evidence that he sought to spread the gospel to the Jew first, and as I pointed out in my previous post immigrant Jews would be found mainly in the most important cities of the Roman empire.

Pete then says:

I'd also question whether Romans 1:16 is talking about an ongoing emphasis of Jew first, Gentile later. How does that affect the reading of 2:9 for instance, and also the discussion in chapters 9-11?

This made me think a little but I do think it is an ongoing emphasis. If there was a turning point in the ‘Jew first’ approach it is surely the rejection of Jesus that leads to his crucifixion, but I think I have shown that while Paul recognises the salvation-historical significance of this rejection, his approach in each of the cities of the Roman Empire demonstrates that he does not think that this rejection was final and ends the priority of Israel. The ordering of blessing, and so cursing, has not been altered by Jewish rejection of Jesus either now or at the final judgment (as I think Rom 1:16f; 2:9) demonstrate. Romans 9-11 is clear on this also. Gentiles are engrafted onto the Jewish olive tree but will never naturally belong there. While so far in this post we have focused on how Israel exists for the salvation of the world, in Romans 11 salvation-history has moved on and now feels the need to remind the gentile church that they have been saved ‘so as to make Israel jealous’ and so lead to Israel’s salvation.

Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."

As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (Romans 11:25-32)

It is weird to our ears, and to Paul’s. True is the saying: ‘How unsearchable are [God’s] judgments and how inscrutable his ways!’, that follows this strange description of God’s plan for the Jews and gentiles.

Pragmatic Paul, or the Theologian of Tarsus?

I have just had a thought going through my head for the last few days. How many times have you heard the observation on Paul's missionary journeys that he focused on cities because it would ensure the greatest impact? I.e. that by focusing on the cultural and economic centres of his day he would ensure that many people would hear the gospel and it would then spread out to the country from the bridgeheads he had developed. Tim Keller has put this best I think when he says that 'cities are where the culture is heading' and so we ought to focus our evangelism there, following the example of Paul. Essentially the consensus is that Paul was primarily a pragmatist in his choice of cities to visit.

However, I have a tentative theory to suggest. I'm sure it is not original but surprisingly I have never heard it put forward. I think Paul may have chosen to focus on cities, and particularly the cities that he did, because they were where Diaspora Jews lived. Then as now immigrant communities lived in the cities, and Paul was committed to the doctrine of 'the Jew first and also the Greek' (e.g. Rom 1:16). His evangelism was always (I can't think of an exception) begun in the synagogue of the city and he only left there either on invitation of 'God-fearing' Gentiles or after being forcefully expelled.

I have not yet met a Christian that seems to truly believe in the doctrine so central to the early church of 'to the Jew first', and I am no different. I suspect we are not half as theological as Paul was in our thoughts on all of life, including evangelism, and without knowing it we all read in our pragmatic disposition into the bible.

Lost for words...

I would love to blog all that I am getting out of this book, but unlike the Apostle John will probably give up when faced with a challenge. It is definitely in the top couple of books I've read this year (although that is not saying much - 2006 has been a bad year).

Apparently Peter Leithart toyed with calling it Through New Eyes for Dummies, after James Jordan's book. Jordan's book is already on order from Amazon, I can barely wait.

John Stott interview

I love John Stott so much, and this interview encapsulates just about everything I love about him (HT Justin Taylor). Truly a model to emulate, and a teacher to learn from.

Freedom for 3 months!

I sat my final exam for my law module for this year with the OU. No more law for 3 months!

I just don't know what to do with myself, after so many months of hard work. 'suppose I'll catch up on some reading.

Thank God they went quite well - for a change. He is so gracious considering I am so lacking in dependence.

Quotable: The active and passive recipients of promise

I don't think I have read a quote which better sums up both the strength and weakness of Reformed theology so well. Following Simeon's test again - you could not find theology more exhalting to the Saviour, and humbling to the sinner; but the door for the sinner to ignore the promotion of holiness has been left ajar.

It is said, "the promise is made to the Seed," yet the promise is made to us, and yet again the covenant is made with Abraham: How can all these stand together? […] The promises that are made to us, though they be of the same covenant, nevertheless differ in this respect: the active part is committed to the Messiah, to the Seed himself, but the passive part consists of the promises made to us […] The meaning is that they are derivative promises. The primary and original promises were made to Jesus Christ.

(Preston, The New Covenant [ed. 1639], cited in p. 250, "The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology", in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr.)

PS. I'd never heard of Preston but this is who he is.

Quotable: Leithart on justification

These are just a couple of quotes I wanted to note down from "'Judge Me, O God': Biblical Perspectives on Justification" by Peter Leithart. Both magnify the scale of God's saving (justifying) work, while reminding us that while it may have already been done, it is still not-yet.

It is true that God "reckons" or "considers" us righteous prior to His taking action on our behalf, and that "reckoning" is an act of sheer grace for the sake of Jesus. But that secret decision is not justification, any more than the decree to save the elect is the salvation of the elect. A judge may conclude that the accused is innocent, but his private conclusion does not constitute a legal decision. A legal decision must be promulgated as a decision of the court, and in many passages of Scripture, God’s public declaration of righteousness occurs when He "gives to the righteous according to His righteousness." God’s forensic declaration does not ring through the heavens while leaving earth in silence; rather, god’s declaration "He is righteous" affects the righteous in real time and real history. […]

Decades ago, Leon Morris wrote in his little book on The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment (1960) about the difference between modern and Hebraic conceptions of judgment. For moderns, to pass judgment means to weigh evidence and declare a sentence. Once the sentence has been passed, the judge’s job is finished, and someone other that the judge ensures that the sentence is carried out and that justice is actually done. In Scripture, however, judgment includes establishing justice as well as deciding what is just.

(pp. 212-213, Peter J. Leithart, "'Judge Me, O God': Biblical Perspectives on Justification" in The Federal Vision, ed. Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner)

The gospel really is a lot better news than bare 'forgiveness of sins'. I remember a John Piper sermon where he said: "forgiveness of sins... who cares right... I mean really?" (hopefully not too misquoted there).

In all of this, it is crucial to remember continually that justification, however defined, is by faith. And in part that means that our justification/vindication is not completely and fully revealed before the Last Judgment. We are justified in the present, but in another sense we await final public vindication. Many believers have been faithful to death, and their bones now lie in forgotten graves or scattered on the earth. God our Father, for His own infinitely wise reasons, did not intervene to rescue and justify them. But they are not forgotten, and someday they will rise to public vindication, while their enemies and accusers are silenced in darkness. Vindication may not be now; it may not be soon; but it will come. Or God is not God.

(pp. 231-232, ibid)

A sobering vision but a better hope than Rupert Brooke's which came to mind as I read it.

Quotable: Vos on the covenants

Quotes I wanted to record from the essay "The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology" by Geerhardus Vos. I think they all pass Simeon's test too.

God does not exist because of man, but man because of God. This is what is written at the entrance of the temple of Reformed theology.

(pp. 242, "The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology", in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr.)

[according to Lutheran theology] Precisely because mankind’s destination had already been reached before the fall in Adam, Christ can do nothing but restore what was lost in Adam. And since the destination already realized was fully compatible with mutability and the possibility of falling, the sinner who has been brought back to his destination by Christ must necessarily have to remain at this level. Lutheran theology is, therefore, wholly consistent when it teaches an apostasy of the saints. It does not at all object to uniting the state of justification and sonship with the possibility of such apostasy. […]

What we inherit in the second Adam is not restricted to what we lost in the first Adam: it is much rather the full realization of what the first Adam would have achieved for us had he remained unfallen and been confirmed in his state. Someone placed in that state can never again fall from it. As truly as Christ is a perfect Saviour, so truly must be bestow on us the perseverance of the saints.

(pp. 242-243, ibid)

I'd never heard these two doctrines connected before.

The obtaining of eternal life thus comes to lie in God, as a work that is Hs alone, in which His glory shines and of which nothing, without detracting from that glory, can be attributed to the creature. On this point the entire Reformation, both Lutheran and Calvinist, took exception to Rome, which failed to appreciate this fundamental truth. Yet the reasons which had driven both sides to this protest were different. With Luther it was the thirst for peace and stability for a restless conscience which could find no tranquillity in Rome’s salvation by works. As long as the sinner himself has to do something for his acquittal, his work remains unstable. Thus the sola fide became the shibboleth of the German Reformation, justification, its principle doctrine. One will agree that, despite all the purity with which this doctrine develops and in which, in developed form, it is given anew to the church, the highest point is still not reach, namely, that point from which the Scripture itself views the matter when, in the words of Paul, it sees the heart of Abraham’s faith in his “giving God the glory” (Rom 4:20). Even in its doctrine of justification Lutheranism did not catch hold of this idea in its fullness. Not a purely theological, but a partly anthropological motif ran through it. It was different with the Reformed. They, too, felt the same necessity to leave the waves of Rome’s salvation by works and once again stand on solid ground. But beside and behind this necessity there lay a deeper longing: a thirst for the glory of God that did not primarily meditate on its own peace. When the Reformed takes the obtaining of salvation completely out of man’s hands, he does this so that the glory which God gets from it might be uncurtailed. What is important for him is the realization that God glorifies Himself in the salvation of sinners, whereas the Lutheran is satisfied when it merely becomes evident that man brings nothing of his own instability into the picture. For the Reformed the center of gravity does not lie in justification as such, but in the principle by which the latter is to be judged and which the Scripture everywhere applies when it teaches us to regard the work of salvation in its totality as being exclusively a work of God.

(pp. 246-247, ibid)

According to the Lutheran, the Holy Spirit first generates faith in the sinner who temporarily still remains outside of union with Christ; then justification follows faith and only then, in turn, does the mystical union with the Mediator take place. Everything depends on this justification, which is losable, so that the believer only gets to see a little of the glory of grace and lives for the day, so to speak. The covenantal outlook is the reverse. One is first united to Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition in faith. By this union with Christ all that is in Christ is simultaneously given. Faith embraces all this too; it not only grasps the instantaneous justification, but lays hold of Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, as his rich and full Messiah. The deepest reason for this difference in view is none other than the fact that the reception of the full glory of the work of God’s grace in the consciousness of faith is the most important thing to the Reformed believer.

(pp. 256-257, ibid)

Not sure about that last sentence though.

Carl Trueman on John Owen

I have found these lectures very thought-provoking over the last week (HT Justin Taylor):

• John Owen: The Man and His Time
• John Owen and the Practice of Theology
• John Owen on God
• John Owen on Christ
• John Owen on the Holy Spirit

It is not so much the content that has challenged me, but the passionate and enthralling picture of a way of doing theology that is quite alien to me, and that I have largely rejected.

Owen, in concert with most of the church throughout history, was very willing to be creative in his theology. Also in common with the historic church, he particularly enjoyed contemplating the nature of the Godhead. I have seen the danger of both these trajectories, but perhaps need to listen to the church more and contemplate their great helpfulness too. I will have to do some thinking on this.

Highly recommended anyway. Thank you Carl Trueman.

If Christ is a bridegroom...

Luther finds lots of wonderful implications from that metaphor.

…if Christ is a bridegroom, he must take upon himself the things which are his bride’s and bestow upon her the things that are his. If he gives her his body and very self, how shall he not give her all that is his? And if he takes the body of the bride, how shall he not take all that is hers?…

Christ is God and man in one person. He has neither sinned nor died and is not condemned and he cannot sin, die, or be condemned; his righteousness, life, and salvation are unconquerable, eternal omnipotent. By the wedding ring of faith he shares in the sins, death and pains of hell which are his bride’s…

Who then can fully appreciate what this royal marriage means? Who can understand the riches of the glory of this grace? Here this rich and divine bridegroom Christ marries this poor, wicked harlot, redeems her from all her evil, and adorns her with all his goodness. Her sins cannot now destroy her, since they are laid upon Christ and swallowed up by him. And she has that righteousness in Christ, her husband of which she may boast as of her own and which she can confidently display alongside her sins in the face of death and hell.

(from "the Freedom of a Christian," in Three Treatises, cited in p. 207 Leithart, Peter J., "'Judge Me, O God': Biblical Perspectives on Justification", in The Federal vision)

And amazingly there is plenty more in that metaphor if you think about it.

A test

According to John Stott, Charles Simeon emphasized three things which he printed in capital letters in the preface to his works:

The Author...would wish his work to be brought to this test - Does it uniformly tend
    TO HUMBLE THE SINNER?
    TO EXALT THE SAVIOR?
    TO PROMOTE HOLINESS?
If in any one instance it loses sight of any of these points, let it be condemned without mercy. (source)

In their midst but still separate

Num 1-4

When Israel camp on their way to the promised land, the tent of meeting is pitched in the centre of the camp with the tribes camped round the outside. The Levites then camp according to their clans in different groups surrounding the tent, and so protecting the rest of the people.

'The people of Israel shall pitch their tents by their companies, each man in his own camp and each man by his own standard. But the Levites shall camp around the tabernacle of the testimony, so that there may be no wrath on the congregation of the people of Israel. And the Levites shall keep guard over the tabernacle of the testimony.' (1:52f)

Further Aaron and his sons 'protect the people of Israel' by 'guarding the sanctuary itself' (3:38). The holiness of God was a fearsome thing. The tent of meeting was a sign of God's closeness to his people, but the rituals surrounding it showed that he was still separate from them. Three levels of priesthood (at least) are clear: the sons of Aaron; the Levites; the people as a whole. The OT teaches the terrible truth that not one of these levels is uncorrupted and ultimately successful in their priestly role (the sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, demonstrate that just in chapter 3).

As NT Christians we know neither humanity's sin, nor God's awesome holiness, has changed (although we often forget). But Christ has demolished the curtains, and the separation between God and man, and brought God into the midst not just of a camp but of our hearts. He has done this not by compromising on God's holiness but by being the perfect priest, and the perfect priestly nation. He did everything Israel and the Levitical priesthood could not.

For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.' (Heb 7:23ff)

Finally, this high priest makes us to be the new priestly nation (1 Pet 2:9), not just by cleansing us either, but by making us perfect as he is perfect (Consider a search for the word perfect in Hebrews).

So, will we, by the power of God, fulfil our calling to intercede for the world?

Crazy stuff our faith, no wonder it is foolishness to the world.

PS If you are feeling scholarly try David Peterson's Hebrews and Perfection. Not that I have, although I know where I can borrow a copy

Giving

Luke 16

The sermon at Church today was on the parable of the shrewd manager. By God's grace I had a couple of thoughts.

• Firstly, I really need to give more, and not just of my money. I am particularly weak, and particularly evil in my giving of time and my 'rights' to fairness. To win friends in this world (v.9) you have to give of your time and hold your rights loosely. Practically, I need to pick up the phone more often, email more, and more generally need to invest in relationships... and not just with those who are my friends already.
• Secondly, I just realised that when Jesus talks about giving, he almost always talks about giving to other people, and particularly the poor. Rarely does he talk about giving to the religious institutions. This is interesting when most sermons on ‘giving’ I have attended have focused on giving to that particular church (there are all sorts of caveats here but I am trying to be brief).

Lord, show me more of how you have model self-giving to me, and by your Holy Spirit my I live in a similar way.

PT Forsyth on the Bible

I have just started Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind by PT Forsyth. He certainly is an interesting fellow, and a different writer to what I expected. As promised in the forward as well he is very quotable. Here are some things that have stood out from what I have read so far:

But the preacher who tries to follow this advice will find himself in one great difficulty. The Bible may be his text book, but it has ceased to be the text book of his audience. The Bible is not read by the Christian, or even by the churchgoing public, as a means of grace greater even than churchgoing. Our people, as a rule, do not read the Bible, in any sense which makes its language more familiar and dear to them than the language of the novel or the press. And I will go so far as to confess that one of the chief miscalculations I have made in the course of my own ministerial career has been to speak to congregations as if they did know and use the Bible. I was bred where it was well known and loved, and I have spent my ministerial life where it is less so. And it has taken me so long to realize the fact that I still find it difficult to adjust myself to it. I am long accustomed to being called obscure by many whose mental habits and interests are only literary, who have felt but a languid interest in the final questions of the soul as the New Testament stirs them, who treat sin as but lapse, God’s grace as if it were but love, and His love as if it were but paternal kindness. At first I believed I was obscure, and I took pains to be short in the sentence and unadorned in style. But I found my critics still puzzled. And I have come to think the obscurity is at least in some degree due to the fact that while I am attracted by such matters beyond all else, I am often dealing with people to whom they are not only strange but irritating. They have applied to religion what William Morris applied to life, "Love is enough." They have given a Christian varnish to what in him was mainly pagan, but they have not really stepped out of his natural world. They have risen to locate the affections in God; but they have not realized faith as the inroad, the uprise in us of a totally new world, Christianity as a new creation, and the new life as a new birth. Grace for them is only love exercised on the divine scale, not in the divine style, not under the conditions of holiness and sin. They read in the heart more than in the Bible. (p.21)

The Reformation was not a reformation of theology, but of faith. It is remarkable how little of the theology it changed in its first stage. It was the renewed action, not of truth, but of grace. It was the greatest of evangelical revivals. That is why it re-discovered the Bible. It was not the Bible that lighted up grace for Luther, but grace to his needy soul lighted up the Bible. Biblical preaching preaches the Gospel and uses the Bible, it does not preach the Bible and use the Gospel. (p.23)

PS If you can't buy the book, it's all online with many of his other works linked to here (on the right sidebar). But if you are like me you may find his prophetic, rhetorical style frustrating as well as enlivening

Hand picked audio resources

And all free...

• Bethinking.org : Engaging with culture
• The European Leadership Forum
• @ the castle
• Reform and Resurgence

Time to charge up your mp3 player.

Richard Gaffin Jr on the Reformation and the teaches the eschatological "not yet"

Richard Gaffin Jr says:

The reformation tradition has clearly grasped, as Paul teaches the eschatological “not yet” of our sanctification, penultimately at death and climactically at Christ’s return, and that our being perfectly conformed to the image of Christ is, until his return and the resurrection of the body, still future. It has maintained that truth more or less consistently, even though at times some have been drawn away, for example, toward various cheap perfectionisms and easy “victorious life” positions.

But, we may ask, has the Reformation grasped as clearly the “resurrection,” eschatological “already” of our sanctification? For instance, as we consider preaching and teaching in our traditions, how many Christians understand that the Holy Spirit presently at work in them is nothing less than resurrection power, that the Spirit, through whom God “will give life to your mortal bodies,” is “his Spirit who dwells in you” (Rom 8:11)? How many believers grasp that the Holy Spirit indwelling them is an eschatological power, that, in terms of the metaphors Paul uses, he in his activity in the church is an actual “down payment” on our eschatological inheritance (2 Cor 1:22, 5:5; Eph 1:14), the “firstfruits” of the full “harvest” of his eschatological working (Rom 8:23)? How many appreciate that Christ himself, as “life-giving Spirit” (1 Cor 15:45), is present and at work in our lives in his resurrection power?

[…]

In the matter of sanctification, it seems to me, we must confront a tendency, at least practical and, my impression is, pervasive, within churches of the Reformation to view the gospel and salvation in its outcome almost exclusively in terms of justification. Recall, for instance, the statement of our conference speaker quoted in the previous chapter, to the effect that the gospel is only about what Christ has done “for us” and apparently does not include his work, through the Spirit, “in us”.

The effect of this outlook, whether or not intended, is that sanctification tends to be seen as the response of the believer to salvation, defined in terms of justification. Sanctification is viewed as an expression of gratitude from our side for our justification and the free forgiveness of our sins, usually with the accent on the imperfection and inadequacy of such expressions of gratitude. Sometimes there is even the suggestion that while sanctification is highly desirable, and its lack certainly unbecoming and inappropriate, it is not really necessary in the life of the believer, not really integral to our salvation and an essential part of what it means to be saved from sin. The attitude we may have – at least this is the way it comes across – is something like, “If Jesus did that for you, died that your sins might be forgiven, shouldn’t you at least do this for him, try to please him?”

With such a construction justification and sanctification are pulled apart; the former is what God does, the latter what we do, and do so inadequately. At worst, this outlook tends to devolve into a deadening moralism.

(pp. 75-76, By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, Carlisle:Paternoster)

Moving the centre of faith

Both Mark Horne and Mark Lauterbach have posted some encouraging God-centred posts coming from different angles.

• Mark Horne on expressing faith by talking about God's gift, not how you 'believe'
• Mark Lauterbach remembering Jesus, not yourself, at communion

Richard Gaffin Jr on Paul’s emphasis on the passivity of Jesus in his resurrection

Richard Gaffin Jr says:

God in his specific identity as the Father raises Jesus; correlatively, Jesus is passive in his resurrection. This viewpoint is maintained consistently by Paul, without exception, as far as I can see. Nowhere does he say that Christ was active in his resurrection, much less that he raised himself. Paul does not teach that Christ “rose” from the dead, but that he “was raised.”

[…]

The theological significance of this stress plainly lies in what we have seen is the controlling unity there is between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of believers. Christ’s passivity in his resurrection reflects his identification and solidarity with believers in being raised from the dead. For Paul, not in conflict with but other than the way it is often understood, the resurrection is not the especially evident display and powerful proof of Christ’s, divinity, but rather the vindication of the incarnate [my italics] Christ in his suffering and obedience unto death,, and, with that, the powerful transformation of him in his humanity.

[…]

Some comment should be made her on the relationship of Paul’s invariable emphasis on the passivity of Jesus in his resurrection to Jesus’ own statements elsewhere suggesting or affirming that he actively rose from the dead [a footnote lists the examples of Jon 2:19 and 10:17-18] […] Paul looks at the resurrection in terms of the Adamic identity of Jesus and the genuine humanity he shares with believers, while Jesus in John’s Gospel affirms what is also true, because of the deity he shares with the Father in his unique identity and relationship as the Son.

(pp. 65-67, By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, Carlisle:Paternoster)

Recent Leithart

Two great (and brief) posts in a row:

• On why Worship is not private devotion
• On why imprecatory prayers appropriate for the church today

All followed up by a post I just don't understand

• On the cup of wrath in Revelation and at the Eucharist

Typical Peter Leithart.

------- UPDATE -------

I have been prompted to think a great deal about God's judgment recently, and Leithart's follow-up post to the one mentioned above on imprecatory prayers gives more detailed application and is very helpful, as is the post of Jim he points to.

I am convinced this is a thinking on these things is no mere accademic activity but gives glory to our Father. It cuts deep but we must never move away from God's hatred of sin (cf. also Adrian Warnock's post).

YHWH and David, God and his anointed

1 Sam 24-25

I found these passages quite difficult, and the observations and thoughts in this post are even more incomplete, tentative, and provisional than usual. However, I noticed that these two chapters have at least two things in common.

1. The recognising of YHWH’s anointed

David recognises Saul as anointed by God and refuses to kill him when encouraged to by his men. He does this despite the risk this involves with his life by letting the man hunting him to escape. He does this despite the personal reward that beckons, as the man anointed to be king next.

Saul, in an unusual moment of clarity, recognises David as anointed by God to be king next. This must not have come easy as it involves confessing that his son will not be, and his legacy will be lost.

Nabal lives up to his name and foolishly can only see David for what he is at the moment, a servant of himself seemingly claiming a title and honours he doesn’t deserve.

God’s anointed one, his chosen one, is not always recognised by everyone. It was true of David, it was true of Jesus, and it is true of the Church. The author of Samuel may consider that Nabal was a very foolish man, but his actions are very understandable. Although the world may always be looking for ‘a sign’ God does not always provide one (though sometimes he does) and further holds us accountable when we do not recognise the truth with or without one. Countless times I have been told this is unfair of God, but God responds that the truth is clear if our heart is not hardened.

2. Leaving YHWH to do the dirty work

David refuses to kill Saul because, as Saul is anointed by God, to do so would be to rebel against YHWH. But this does not mean that he does not think Saul should be killed. After the incident he exclaims to Saul

May the Lord judge between me and you, may the Lord avenge me against you, but my hand shall not be against you. As the proverb of the ancients says, ‘Out of the wicked comes wickedness.’ But my hand shall not be against you. After whom has the king of Israel come out? After whom do you pursue? After a dead dog! After a flea! May the Lord therefore be judge and give sentence between me and you, and see to it and plead my cause and deliver me from your hand.” (vv. 12-15)

It is for God and God alone to bring about his purposes if it involves the death of another. For chapter 25 shows that it is not just his anointed that David is unwilling to murder.

Nabal in insulting David is also insulting God, and David is riled by Nabal’s arrogance. However he is restrained by a wise Abigail who reminds him that God will achieve his own purposes, and in this way David will be prevented from bloodguilt. Sure enough, ten days later Nabal is dead.

YHWH has again opened up himself to the charge that he is unrighteous, and unreasonable. How can God cause the death of Nabal, and later Saul, and yet not be tainted by the bloodguilt that David would have incurred?

I don’t have a complete answer to this question.

The bible makes it clear that both Saul and Nabal received just recompense for evil they had committed. It is also clear that there is no fairer judge that YHWH, and no one else with the right to take that place for themselves.

The focus of this passage is not on these apologetic questions – important as they are – but on God himself. It is concerned with God’s power and his purposes, and recognising these and acting on them.

Pray the world recognises Jesus Christ (trans ‘anointed one’) for who he is, and look toward his coming for the completion of his purposes of judgment and blessing.

Richard Gaffin Jr on what is true and what should be

Richard Gaffin Jr says:

[…]“seek after what you already have, because you already have it.”

In the study of Paul in the modern period this pattern of teaching has been the object of a fair amount of discussion and is often referred to as the “the problem of indictive and imperative in Paul”. While this teaching certain [sic] challenges the church, it is not ultimately problematic and so might better be referred to as the pattern or phenomenon of indicative and imperative in Paul. In addition to Colossians 3:1-4, the following passages belong to this pattern:

Galatians 5:25: “If we live in the Spirit, let us walk in the Spirit,” virtually equivalent to, “If we live in the Spirit let us live in the Spirit.”

Galatians 5:1: “Christ has set us free for freedom, stand firm and don’t be burdened again with a yoke of slavery.” Equivalent in its elemental thrust to, “you are free, therefore be free.”

Ephesians 5:8: “But now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light.”

1 Corinthians 5:7: “Get rid of the old leaven that you may become a new batch of dough [= “become unleavened”], even as you become unleavened.”

Galatians 3:27: the indicative, believers “have put off the old man and put on the new”; Ephesians 4:22-24, on the most likely reading: the imperative, they are to “put off the old and put on the new.”

Romans 6:2: the indicative, “you have died to sin”, verse 12 the imperative, “do not let sin reign in your mortal body.”

[…]

Paul, we may observe, never writes in the imperative without first writing , at least implicitly, in the indicative. That is so because he knows all too well, better than some subsequent preachers, that “it does no good to beat a dead horse” – which is exactly what the congregation is apart from Christ, apart from who they are and what they have in him.

(pp. 69-72, By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, Carlisle:Paternoster)

A thought of the summer

I am going to try and get this blog going over the coming week.

I a going to start with a an interesting thought that I read somewhere over the summer:

People contrast human- and God-centred religion often. But a true understanding of humanity, the image of God, should point to God. There is nothing wrong with being human-centred in our religion because it does not exclude being God-centred. Both God and humanity should be at the centre of our lives, but not some false vision of either. They are not rivals for our affection. This point is beautifully summed up by Jesus:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt 22)

Among other things I think this leads to a correct view of 'social justice', and a God-exhalting view of creation.