Problems with comments

Sorry to all of you who commented in the last few weeks and I didn't respond. Usually Blogger emails me to let me know if someone has commented. It hasn't recently. I don't know why.

Online Mark Seifrid resources

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

Mark Seifrid is Mildred and Ernest Hogan Professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Articles

• "The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Still Fresher Reading of Paul" 2006 Symposium on Exegetical Theology, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana (17 January 2006) published as "The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N.T. Wright" in Concordia Theological Quarterly (Vol 72:1, January 2008)
• "The Gospel as the Revelation of Mystery: The Witness of the Scriptures to Christ in Romans" in SBJT 11/3 (Fall 2007)
• "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: An Introduction to the Distinction between Law and Gospel" in SBJT 10/2 (Summer 2006)
• "Justified by Faith and Judged by Works: A Biblical Paradox and Its Significance" (SBJT Winter 2001) - a revised version of his faculty address
• "The Waiting Church and Its Duty: James 5:13-18" (SBJT Fall 2000)
• "The 'New Perspective on Paul' and Its Problems" (Themelios, Issue 25-2, Feb 2000)
• "Faith, Hope, and Love: Paul’s Message to the Church at Thessalonica" (SBJT Fall 1999)
• "Salvation, BF&M Article 4 Summary" from An Exposition from the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on The Baptist Faith and Message 2000
• "'The gift of salvation': Its failure to address the crux of justification" (JETS, December 1999)
• "Natural Revelation and the Purpose of the Law in Romans" (TynBul, 49.1, May 1998) [pdf] [doc]
• "Blind Alleys in the Controversy Over the Paul of History" (TynBul, 45.1, May 1994) [pdf] [doc]

Audio

• Discussion with Albert Mohler, Tom Schreiner, Brian Vickers and Denny Burk: N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification, video and MP3 (3 September 2009)
• Discussion with Tom Schreiner, Brian Vickers and Denny Burk: "Assessing the Piper-Wright Debate on Justification", MP3, (15 April 2009)
• Sermon: "The Radically Realistic Gospel: Romans 7:7-25", MP3, (1 June 2008)
• Sermon: "The Parable of the Talents", MP3, (1 July 2007)
• SBTS Faculty Address: "Justification by Faith", MP3, (16 February 2000)

Reviews by Seifrid

• The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation by Mark Nanos (Trinity Journal, Fall 2004)
• Leben aus den Verheissungen: Traditionsgeschichtliche und biblisch-theologische Untersuchungen zur Rede von Gottes Verheissungen im Frühjudentum und beim Apostel Paulus, by Gerhard Sass (RBL, 2000)
• Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds by Kent L. Yinger (RBL, 22 June 2000)
• Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings By Jeffrey A. D. Weima (JETS September 1998)

Reviews of Seifrid

• Review of Christ Our Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Justification by Simon J. Gathercole (Beginning With Moses / Themelios Vol. 26 No. 2)
• Review of Christ Our Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Justification by Kim Riddlebarger (Modern Reformation, March/April 2002 Vol: 11 Num: 2)

Leithart and I on Law and Gospel

To quote Leithart in full:

A strict distinction between law and gospel is offered as a prophylactic against works-righteousness. If it is admitted that law is gospel in any sense, all is lost.

But this view assumes the very same view of law that it contests. A proponent of works righteousness sees the law as demands that need to be kept, and the end of the law is simply its keeping. The proponent of law/gospel segregation has the same view of law.

Both detach law from its purpose, which, as Knight argues, is eschatological. Law exists to correct, instruct, lead to maturity. And to that extent, law is always intended as, and in practice often is, good news.

However is this to misunderstand what is properly meant by Law/Gospel. Charles Arand and Robert Kolb in their conversations on the Book of Concord note that even "Christ died for your sins" can be "Law" rather than Gospel if you hear it as condemning you for the magnitude of your sins rather than lifting you from despair (they said it in a really menacing and accusative way to emphasise the point).

Kolb and Arand don't make the connection but I wonder if the same cannot be true for commandments. Commandments can be good news if they bring life rather than condemnation. I think of the beatitudes which Matthew characterises as Gospel (Matt 4:23) although most people teach them as commandments - do this and you will receive this (be merciful and you will receive mercy etc). However, if read in context they seem to be saying: “rejoice because you who are X are going to be saved”. It does not say be X, but assumes that they already are. Equally though it could be preached as an impossible standard we cannot reach in seeking justification by our works.

So the same words can have the different meanings for different people. God knew this so the Law of Moses was intended to be both life and death to people, just as the Gospel is (2 Corinthians 2:16). This may make interpretation of the different statements in the bible a whole lot easier (although it may be cheating).

Why all Christians need to think about Biblical Theology

How can we read the scriptures like Jesus on the road to Emmaus, Peter at Pentecost, and Paul in Romans, when the word Jesus is so small in a Wordle of the bible (from the ESV blog; what is a Wordle?)?

A start may be made by realising that Jesus is in one way or another also 'Lord', 'God', the Word ('said'), 'Israel', the 'people', and 'king'.

I wish I had time to right this post

Why Tom Wright's theology is distinctively Reformed, even though it is different from most Reformed theologies out there today.

I would talk about their similarities on:

• The importance of union with Christ
• Justification/baptism as declaring a reality that is already present
• Redemption as involving the whole of creation
• Biblical theology
• The importance of covenant
• The emphasis on the goodness of the law
• The doctrine of Sola Scriptura
• ...and more?

I probably haven't read enough to make it coherent and persuasive... still that never has stopped me posting before. :)

A quick search of the internet would give me some quotes to use as illustrations though, e.g.

"I grew up in a Lutheran evangelicalism which left me with a strong antithesis between law and grace. I found this all profoundly unsatisfying until I met Calvin and Calvinism. I began to think, "Whew…the law is a good thing. It is holy and just and good. It is right and it has been fulfilled, not abrogated, in Christ." All of that is right. So, if you are faced with a choice between Luther and Calvin, you simply have to choose Calvin... What I then found, and believe me I tried very hard to do this, was that I couldn’t make the Calvinist reading of Galatians actually work." (An Interview with NT Wright by Travis Tamerius)

"From (at least) Calvin onwards, reaching something of a climax in the Romans commentary of Charles Cranfield, exegetes in the Reformed tradition found in Paul a view of the Jewish law which was far more positive than Lutheran exegesis had assumed. I am not sure that this tradition ever did full justice to second Temple Judaism, but at least it did not start from the assumption that the law itself was basically a bad thing ripe for abolition. (Notice how this works out in exegesis of the notorious crux at Rom. 10: 4: is Christ the abolition, end, completion, goal, or fulfilment of the law? Or what?) After all, in [72] Reformed Theology the Torah was given in the first place within a historical scheme, not to enable the Israelites to keep it and so earn their membership in God’s people, but to enable them, as a people already redeemed through the Exodus, to demonstrate and work out the implications of their membership and vocation. The (at least partial) convergence of Sanders’s reading of Judaism with a Reformed view of the law makes it all the more ironic that the anti-NP movement is today centred not least in Reformed circles such as the Presbyterian Church of America and Westminster Theological Seminary" (Redemption from the New Perspective? Towards a Multi-Layered Pauline Theology of the Cross)

Wright: Would you agree with the following analysis of how all this happened? The mainstream of New Testament studies from the Reformation until very recently – certainly in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries – was being led by German Lutherans who had a very definite law-gospel antithesis. Had it instead been led by people in the Reformed as opposed to the Lutheran tradition, the new perspective would never have been necessary. If you take the theology of someone like Ridderbos or Charles Cranfield, you find exactly the same idea in principle, which is that the law was never given as a ladder of good works up which people ought to climb to save themselves; if anyone ever thought that, that was an abuse of the law, because grace and particularly the covenant precedes obedience.

I find this very ironic, because if you were to go on to Google and were to type in “Tom Wright” +”justification by faith,” you would turn up many American web sites from the Presbyterian Church of America and various other strongly Reformed centers like Westminster Seminary which are extremely rude about the two people sitting on this platform tonight for having sold Paul down the river and given up the genuine Reformed doctrine of justification by faith. This is really quite bizarre, because I think that what we have both done in taking forward Sanders’ proposal theologically – Sanders is really not a theologian, he’s more of an historian – I see what we’re doing as actually much more on a Reformed map than a Lutheran map, precisely because of the emphasis on the covenant and grace as basic, and on the Law from the start as being the way of life for the redeemed people. This corresponds to Luther’s tertiary use of it, if you like, but it’s much easier to do it in a Reformed or Calvinist framework. Would you be happy with that?

Dunn: That’s entirely so. I rediscovered, as it were, my Reformed heritage in all this because I was brought up Presbyterian. I was a strong Calvinist in my youth, and one of the impressive things about Calvin is that he sees the continuity of the covenants. The covenant of grace is the dominant category running through the Old and New Testaments.

Wright: Grand narrative, you mean.

Dunn: Well, a motif, shall we say. And likewise, a very important point: Calvin’s work is systematic – Luther was never systematic like that. Calvin is able to integrate better what is typically called now a “participationist” soteriology (“in Christ”) and the forensic emphasis. One of the sad things about this rebuke coming from many in the States is that they want to operate entirely in forensic categories. They haven’t really integrated the en Christo, the “in Christ” motif, which is so fundamental to Paul. The term “in Christ” occurs far more frequently in Paul than justification language.

Wright: Yes.

(An Evening Conversation on Jesus and Paul with James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright)

Newbigin on telling stories

I have done a good deal of street preaching in my life and I have often stood in a street to preach the gospel where the name of Jesus is quite unknown. It is no use mentioning the name of Jesus because no one knows what that means, but I have to use the word God. Of course I must find one of the many Tamil words for God and there are many words. And when I use one of these words, I know that in my hearers' minds they will be thinking of perhaps Shiva or Vishnu or Murugan or Subramanya or Ganesha or Hanuman. they will certainly not be thinking of the one whom I think of when I say the word God, the one I have learned to know through Jesus Christ. So what difference has my preaching made? So far, none at all. It will only make a difference when I begin to tell stories about what this God has done. Then you begin to see that God is different from what we thought, because you come to know who a person really is only be understanding that person's life, knowing how she behaves, how she responds in different situations, by interacting with her.

(p.117 "...and Culture" in Signs Amid the Rubble: The Purposes of God in Human History by Lesslie Newbigin)

Very true, and one reason why I am loving being part of sharing the Gospel through the gospel of Mark using Christianity Explored.

The only unhelpful thing about it is that by focusing on stories about God's actions, we can distance ourselves more easily than if we focus on what God has said. Although it is less fashionable, it is actually more personal to focus on the latter. Both are true though.

Did Luther believe justification by faith was a legal fiction?

Paul Helm doesn't like a similarity in Richard Baxter and Tom Wright's theology of justification. He says that both believe "Justification is not a change of status, but of persons.". This may or may not be true, but consider Kolb and Arand on Martin Luther's theology of Justification:

Those who see this form of forensic justification as merely a legal fiction do not share Luther’s understanding of the power of the Word of God. The reformer knew that from the beginning of the world, God determined reality by speaking. Therefore, he was certain that God’s word of forgiveness created a new reality in the life of the sinner.

(I heard something similar in audio from them, but this is from their book, HT Shephard's Scrapbook)

So for Luther the key thing is not whether justification is a declaration or regeneration. It is both. The question is which comes first in priority.

There is a book out there by Lowell Green that argues that Melancthon "helped Luther discover the Gospel", by which he means forensic justification (or so I understand). In the Apology to the Augsburg Confession Melancthon states that:

by faith alone we obtain the remission of sins for Christ's sake, and that by faith alone we are justified, i.e., of unrighteous men made righteous, or regenerated.

Some connections could be drawn here with speech-act theory. Unsurprisingly though Anthony Thiselton got there first. He has an article called 'Justification by grace as legal fiction? : "language-games and 'seeing as' : a fresh approach to justification by faith in Paul and James"' (in Thiselton on Hermeneutics). I'll have to see if I can get hold of it.

How I cut 7 words out of the Lord's prayer

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Lead us not into temptation
but deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power,
and the glory are yours
now and for ever.
Amen.

I don't know how I have been so blind before.

Evangelism resources

1. Real Life Jesusby Mike Cain

I remember Mike Cain happily from my Bristol days. I haven't finished it yet but I think this is a great little book. It's winsome and encourages further thought. It is not an introduction to Christianity but more a primer to encourage further exploration. It presents Christianity as full of life and not at all stale.

2. Christianity Explored

Something else I have not yet finished but which I'm also loving. I started doing this with my church and a friend recently with sinfully small expectations. However it is excellent for at least 3 reasons:

• firstly, Rico Tice's videos are very well made, not only are they not cringworthy they are actually brilliant representations of the message;
• secondly, it uses the gospel of Mark to teach the gospel. God's own word confronts people and not just my opinion or the leader's opinion.
• thirdly, Jesus and not 'the religion of Christianity' is all pervasive.

I really have not done it justice. I am loving it! ... and loving seeing what God is doing through it!

3. Tim Keller's talks from The Reason for God website

From the series "The Trouble with Christianity: Why it's so Hard to Believe It"
Exclusivity: How can there be just one true religion?	Download Audio	Study Guide
Suffering: If God is good, why is there so much evil in the world?	Download Audio	Study Guide
Absolutism: Don't we all have to find truth for ourselves?	Download Audio	Study Guide
Injustice: Hasn't Christianity been an instrument for oppression?	Download Audio	Study Guide
Hell: Isn't the God of Christianity an angry Judge?	Download Audio	Study Guide
Doubt: What should I do with my doubts? (by David Bisgrove)	Download Audio	Study Guide
Literalism: Isn't the Bible historically unreliable and regressive?	Download Audio	Study Guide

Again I haven't finished them all, and I'm not sure that I agree with everything in the one on Hell, but he is an amazingly engaging and thoughtful speaker. I'm buying the book off the back of them.

The Colossian heresy

Was there one?

I'm not convinced. Partly because sermons on Colossians I have heard always seem to take a long time explaining it because it is not at all clear from the text. And whenever they have finished explaining it I never feel that anything has been added to the exposition.

However false teachings clearly are in view. Paul's purpose for the letter seems to be found in Colossians 2:1-5:

For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.

Focussing on this particular passage we learn that:

• Paul had not met the Colossians and Laodiceans (suggesting a more general purpose of creating a relationship and general encouragement)
• He intended the letter to be read in two places, so it has a general purpose to both communities.
• He sees false teaching as something that may come and which needs preventative rather than restorative medicine (note the future tense of many of the mentions of false teaching).
• He rejoices in their order and faith (again suggesting that nothing is afoot as yet).

A bit of a rambling post but hopefully you get my drift.

Plea to preachers: don't get sidetracked from the exultation of Christ which is so clear in this wonderful letter.

Questions 6 and 9

When people first hear about the depth of human sin, the bondage of the will, and the unconditional grace of God in Christ [...] they almost always ask one of two questions: question 6 or question 9 (from Rom 6 and 9). The concordists address question 6 in article 4: Is grace just license to do whatever we please? Or, in the words of Romans 6:1, "Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?" (Just don't tell the kids!) Question 9 is posed in Romans 9:3, What about "my kindred according to the flesh"?

(p.183, Wengert, Timothy J., A Formula for Parish Practice: Using the Formula of Concord in Congregations).

The most important and necessary articles

I will here briefly recount these [5] articles of the Christian faith to which everyone is above all things to pay attention and hold fast.

The first is the law of God,which is to be preached so that one thereby reveals and teaches how to recognize sin (Rom 3[:20] and 7[:7]), as we have often shown in our writings. However, these prophets do not understand this correctly, for this means a truly spiritual preaching of the law, as Paul says in Rom 7[:14], and a right use of the law, as he says in I Tim 1[:8].

Secondly, when now sin is recognized and the law is so preached that the conscience is alarmed and humbled before God's wrath, we are then to preach the comforting word of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins, so that the conscience again may be comforted and established in the grace of God, etc.

Christ himself teaches these two articles in such an order (Luke 24[:47]). One must preach repentance and teh forgiveness of sins in his name. "And the Spirit (he says in John [16:8]) will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment." You do not find either of these two articles in this one or any other of the false prophets. They also do not understand them, and yet these are the most important and necessary articles.

(p.160, Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1925), in Selected Writings of Martin Luther ed. T.G. Tappert)

Protestants, baptism and the covenants (Part 2)

More sweeping generalisations which may not be true. Perhaps I should call them hypotheses for testing.

• For Lutherans the sacraments are the covenant/promise with the individual ("This cup is the new covenant in my blood").
• For the Reformed the sacraments are the sign of a covenant/promise which existed before hand with the individual ("He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.").
• For Baptists the sacraments are reminders of the covenant/promise that was made before hand and has no necessary connection with the individual ("Do this in remembrance of me").

Please disprove my hypothesis.

A command to baptism "pertaining to all"

Passages from Luther suggesting he thought the Baptism should be universal (indiscriminate) because the New Covenant included all:

If [inclusion in the kingdom, justification] was brought about with the Jews in the Old Testament through the medium of circumcision, why would God not do the same thing with the Gentiles through the medium of the new covenant (novo pacto) of baptism? The command pertains to all (praeceptum universale est): "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them …" Hence whereas circumcision was commanded only to the descendants of Abraham, baptism is commanded to all the nations, with the promise of salvation if they believe.

(WA 42,622,19-25 = LW3,104 on Gen 17:3-6 cited in Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther By Jonathan D. Trigg, p.105)

Our baptism, thus, is a strong and sure foundation, affirming that God has made a covenant with all the world to be a God of the heathen in all the world, as the gospel says. Also that Christ has commanded the gospel to be preached in all the world, as also the prophets have declared in many ways. As a sign of this covenant he has insituted baptism, commanded and enjoined upon all heathen, as Matt. declares: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father," etc.

(Martin Luther, pp. 257-258, Concerning Rebaptism in Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings)

Protestants, baptism and the covenants

I'm not sure that this is right but it is seeming from my reading that:

• Luther thought that the New Covenant is with every individual. It may be rejected by unbelief but the promise of the New Covenant is for all.
• Reformed theology seems to see the New Covenant as being with believers and their children (unless they reject it). However, I may be wrong here as while it is clear that they see believer's children as in the 'covenant community' I'm not sure that it is the same thing as thinking they are in the covenant.
• Credobaptists believe that the New Covenant is with believers only.

If this is a true summary then the different beliefs about baptism are simple to explain. However, I am 90% sure that my sweeping generalisation is wrong. But I'm trying to get things right in my head as I go.

Please, please, please correct me where I'm wrong.

This blog

This blog seems to have turned into my notebook. I don't know if this a good or a bad thing. It must make reading it intolerable though. My lack of readers may be due to this, but on the up side my lack of readers also ensures that it doesn't matter.

God's word and infant baptism

Assume that the first baptism is without faith. Tell me which is the greater and the more important in the second baptism, the Word of God or faith? Is it not true that the Word of God is greater and more important than faith, since faith builds and is founded on the Word of God rather than God's Word on faith? Furthermore faith may waver and change but God's Word remains forever. Then too, tell me, if one of these two should be otherwise, which should it rather be: the immutable Word or the changeable faith? Would it not more reasonably be the faith that should be subject to change rather than the Word of God? It is fairer to assume that the Word of God would change faith, if a right one were lacking, than that faith would change the Word of God.

(Concerning Rebaptism, pp. 257-258 of Basic Theological Writings)

I guess credobaptists realise this and so that is why they don't accept that baptism is primarily an arrow down.

Hot theology

Bruce McCormack has been weighing in on the debate about Peter Enns' book (see here and here if you missed it and are curious), and as a aside mentions something I have noticed but haven't had the theological knowledge to put a fancy Greek name to:

The last thing most of my friends want is a truly Protestant theology (whether Lutheran or Reformed); theosis is the hot topic in soteriology and both Lutheran and Reformed theologians are struggling mightily to find something akin to a theosis doctrine in their own church fathers (in Luther but also in Calvin - as Todd Billings’ recent book amply demonstrates). (source HT: Michael Bird)

Not only do I not have the knowledge to put a fancy name to it but I find it too mind-bending to try and analyse theosis in the light of the Bible. Similarly I can't really make up my mind about the whole Enn's saga (bizarrely, or perhaps not, I think Peter Leithart has managed the best critique of the book). But it is nice to be aware of what is hot in theology at the moment as it all trickles down and I often swallow stuff before realising later that its not as straight forward as I thought. I hate swallowing stuff unknowingly.

BTW I must remember to get round to reading Bruce McCormack properly. The tiny amount I have read has been very stimulating.

Excluded from the generations

It is easy in some ways to see the structure of Genesis as the author kindly provides us with section headings (although slightly confusingly when X is in the title it is the children of X and not X himself in focus):

1. the generations of the heavens and the earth [about humanity as a whole and climaxing in God's curse of humanity]
2. the generations of Noah [about Noah but climaxing at the end with his blessings/curses for his sons]
3. the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. [about the children of Noah's son's (the nations) and climaxing with God's judgment of them at Babel]
4. the generations of Shem. ['just' a list of Shem's descendants]
5. the generations of Terah.[about Abraham and Isaac closing with Abraham and God's blessing of Isaac]
6. the generations of Ishmael [a short list of his descendants]
7. the generations of Isaac [about Jacob and climaxing with his blessing and renaming by God]
8. the generations of Esau [a short list of Esau's descendants]
9. the generations of Jacob [about Joseph and Judah and climaxing with the blessing of both]

Lot's to think about in this structure but I've been thinking about Judah and Tamar again due to Peter Dray's prompting. Gordon Wenham comments on this episode that:

If scholars had taken more seriously the editor's title in 37:2, "This is the family history of Jacob," they might not have been so wont to write off this chapter as irrelevant. Chaps. 37-50 are not just the story of Joseph but the story of Jacob's family. Therefore, to have sections entirely devoted to other sons of Jacob should not be surprising.

However when you think about that there is a further problem which jumps out at you. Why are what are perhaps the most significant stories about some of Jacob's children (Simeon, Levi, Dinah and Reuben) in the wrong section? Why are they in Genesis 34 and Genesis 35:22 when naturally they belong in Chapters 37-50? The answer seems to come in what I think is the climax of Genesis: Jacob's blessing of his sons. Jacob starts with considering his eldest sons:

"Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might, and the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. Unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence, because you went up to your father's bed; then you defiled it—he went up to my couch! "Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of violence are their swords. Let my soul come not into their council; O my glory, be not joined to their company. For in their anger they killed men, and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen. Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce, and their wrath, for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel."

Not much of a blessing! In fact it is clear that Jacob is excluding his 3 eldest son's from the promise because of their behaviour in the other section of the book. Then, In a way that seems difficult to hold together Jacob blesses both Judah and Joseph in very strong terms which in one breath give prominence to Judah and in another to Joseph. It is clear how Joseph justifies these high blessings but the story of Judah and Tamar hardly seems to make Judah fit for "the ruler's staff". In a way this is of course typical of God, for he is a God of grace, but yet there may still be a reason for it. Wenham again:

There is a glaring contrast between Jacob's inconsolable grief over the "death" of Joseph, described at the end of chap.37, and the absence of any mourning by Judah when two of his sons died, as described in 38:7-10. Judah seems to be a hard and callous man. [...] In this story, he not only fails to mourn the death of his two sons but he summarily orders his daughter-in-law to be burned. Yet what a different Judah we meet in 44:18-34. Here he appeals for Benjamin's release with great warmth and tenderness [...] Clearly, Judah is a changed man, and this story shows the beginning of the transformation when he admits "She is in the right, not I" (38:26). [...] in its biographical sketches, character change is what Genesis is all about: Abram becomes Abraham; Jacob becomes Israel.

So Genesis 38 is a turning point in the life of Judah. Here he repents of sin which contrasts with Simeon and Levi in Genesis 34:30-31 who they are defiant in their own righteousness in the face of a stinging rebuke from their father. Wenham mentions Judah's new tenderness later in Genesis but there he also seems to take the role of the leader amongst the brothers in Joseph's absence. In Genesis 43:1-10 Judah speaks on behalf of his brothers in conversation with Jacob and pledges for Benjamin's safety. In Genesis 44 we also read of "Judah and his brothers" where Judah again acts as spokesman for his brothers when talking to Joseph.

So perhaps the key to Genesis 38 comes in its final verses:

• Judah repents
• The line of the Seed is continued with the birth of children.
• The younger ousts the older to be pre-eminent.

Those are just some thoughts to keep me going anyway.

Cullmann on Baptism

I have been re-reading Oscar Cullmann's brilliant Baptism in the New Testament again. He concludes his little, but influential, book like this:

In the New Testament it is certainly proved that Baptism is applied to adult Jews and heathen who come over to Christianity. Proof of infant Baptism is at best indirectly demonstrable from observable indications. On the other hand, infant Baptism is in every detail congruous with the doctrine of Baptism, in the following ways:

1. in so far as Christ in his death and resurrection procures for all men and independent of them a general Baptism [i.e. judgment overcome with new life];
2. in so far as God in the entirely sovereign act of grace of Church Baptism permits the person baptised, through an incorporation into the fellowship of the Body of Christ at a specific place, to take part in that once-for-all saving event;
3. in so far as faith as response to this grace is decisive;
4. in so far as Baptism in its nature is the completion of circumcision and of the proselyte baptism connected, with it.

From these final conclusions, both adult and infant Baptism are to be regarded as equally biblical. (p.70)

Wonderfully this book is now on the internet here (pdf). Go read it if you can.

The sacraments as God's arrow down

Glen Scrivener comments that Mike Reeves says that "the sacraments are not our 'arrow up' to God and the world. They’re His 'arrow down'. His promise to us, not our promise to Him." I was reminded of that comment when reading Melanchthon today who writes in his Loci Communes (1543):

Profane people think that the sacraments are signs of profession which distinguish us from other people [...] or are symbols of certain functions regarding other people [...] But although many purposes have been ordained for the sacraments, yet far at the head of all of these must be placed this chief purpose, namely that they might be signs of God's will toward us, that is, added testimonies of the promise of grace [...] These rites are not human spectacles like the tragedies of the Greeks, which were set up so that some kind of commemoration of things done might be handed down to posterity; but they have far higher purposes. (p.139)

The Look

Thanks to Sovereign Grace Music for bringing this old hymn alive with a modern setting (you can download the mp3 free here). I didn't know the hymn before but the words are amazing.

In evil long I took delight,
    Unawed by shame or fear;
Till a new object struck my sight,
    And stopped my wild career.

I saw one hanging on a tree,
    In agonies and blood;
Who fixed his languid eyes on me,
    As near his cross I stood.

Sure, never till my latest breath,
    Can I forget that look;
It seemed to charge me with his death,
    Though not a word he spoke.

My conscience felt, and owned the guilt,
    And plunged me in despair;
I saw my sins his blood had spilt,
    And helped to nail him there.

Alas! I knew not what I did,
    But now my tears are vain;
Where shall my trembling soul be hid?
    For I the LORD have slain.

A second look he gave, which said,
    "I freely all forgive;
This blood is for thy ransom paid,
    I die, that thou may’st live."

Thus, while his death my sin displays,
    In all its blackest hue;
(Such is the mystery of grace)
    It seals my pardon too.

With pleasing grief and mournful joy,
    My spirit now is filled;
That I should such a life destroy,
    Yet live by him I killed.

One of the best things about blogs is you can save stuff for yourself at a later date.

A journey with sacraments

I think that I became a paedobaptist for the second time (!) because I decided that every argument against it, if valid would also overturn circumcision, because the differences between the OT and the NT that were relied upon to distinguish the two were shown up to be no difference at all by Romans 9-11.

I think I've now come to a 'high' Lutheranish position for the same reason. Arguments about real presence and effectual rituals rely on seeing God as either free or bound. However the OT sees God as both ultimately free, but graciously choosing to bind himself in covenant to certain signs. In the OT he is seen as both as everywhere and residing in the Temple. It sees sacrifices as themselves effectual, and yet worse than pointless without repentance. How can you reconcile the two? I haven't got a clue. In that I am like Luther who said to Zwingli:

"I do not ask how Christ can be God and man and how His natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ Himself says, 'This is my body.' I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments..."

Judah and Tamar retold

"may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring that the Lord will give you by this young woman." (Ruth 4:12)

A strange blessing to give a couple considering Judah and Tamar were as far from the perfect couple as you could imagine. However, perhaps this was important to the author of Ruth as the story bares some striking similarities to the story in Genesis 38. In addition the story ends with "the generations of Perez" giving a genealogy beginning with Perez and ending with David.

After some reflection I think I may go so far as to say that Ruth is the recounting of what the faithful people of God act like in contrast to the cautionary tale of Judah and Tamar. Here are some of the similarities I spotted.

Gen 38	Ruth
Judah went down from his brothers and turned aside to a certain Adullamite	Elimelech moved away from his people to Moab
Judah and his son marry a Canaanite	Mahlon and Chilion marry Moabites
Judah's two sons die	Elimelech and his two sons die
Judah and Onan act unfaithfully as kinsman-redeemer	Boaz acts faithfully as kinsman-redeemer, the un-named redeemer of Ruth 4 does not act faithfully
Tamar faithfully seeks to continue the line	Ruth faithfully seeks to continue the line
Tamar offers herself as a prostitute to Judah	Ruth seeks to seduce Boaz in a way which could almost be considered entrapment
Judah dishonourable and seduced by Tamar	Boaz is honourable in his conduct to Ruth
Tamar is included in the people of Israel and is an ancestor of Boaz, David and Jesus	Ruth is included in the people of Israel and is an ancestor of David and Jesus

However, as I find Genesis 38 one of the more puzzling bits of Scripture perhaps I haven't helped myself understand Ruth any better.

Anointing of Jesus

"I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." (Matthew 26:13)

I think I ought to do a list of episodes which appear in every single one of the four gospels. I don't think there can be many and arguably this one isn't one as the four accounts of Jesus being anointed do not all tally nicely and there seems to be more than one event described in the NT. But anyhow, I have always found this phrase in Matthew's account weird. But I think the sermon I heard at church on Sunday has hinted at a reason behind it.

Of course the anointing is to burial and that is explicit in 3 of the 4 accounts. However could it not also be an anointing of Jesus as King? It is like David and Saul but as different as he is different yet similar to them. It is an anointing to death, through which comes glory; an anointing by a lowly woman and not a mighty prophet or priest.

I don't know, I'm just musing.