Another post on the sacraments

Listening to: Kris Drever: Black Water

[To a friend who asked "Are the sacraments means of grace or signs of grace?" By no means the last word on the subject.]

I think there are two good angles to approach this issue from.

Firstly, the conviction that the sacraments are not primarily something we do but primarily something done to us. More specifically it is not something we offer to God, but something that God offers to us. The direction is down more than it is up. I think that this reflects the language the Bible uses to speak about the sacraments. It also reflects that the Gospel is a Gospel of grace, apart from works. God always takes the initiative. This means that, for example, while baptism is a declaration of our faith to the world, it is more importantly a declaration of God that he promises life in Christ to all those who die with Christ - and particularly to that person being baptised.

Secondly, the comparison of the sacraments with less theologically charged topics, which share similar characteristics. Healing miracles, and the Bible are good examples and I think help to throw light on how we should understand the sacraments.

Coming from these two angles (all at once!) we can then see that the sacraments, in common with healing miracles and the Bible, are signs pointing away from themselves to grace, means by which that grace comes, and even the grace itself.

1. Sign of grace

The healing miracles of Jesus were described by John as signs because they pointed away from themselves. They pointed to Jesus, his authority, and the nature of that authority as life-giving. To neglect this is to make the mistake of the Jews in John 6:26 and love the gift to the neglect of the giver.

The Bible also points away from itself to the acts of God in history, and through them to God himself. To neglect this is to commit bibliolatry which evangelicals are occasionally criticised for.

Similarly, the sacraments point away from themselves. They point firstly to the Holy Spirit's work of new-birth (in Baptism) and nourishment (in the Lord's Supper), but they point through that to Christ's death and resurrection which is the source of both, and the eschaton when both will be consummated. If we neglect this then we think of the sacraments as having some magical power inherent to them, and barriers to real personal relationship with God. We also are in danger of forgetting that we live a life of hope, looking forward to Jesus' second coming.

2. Means of grace

The healing miracles were used by Jesus as means by which people were brought to faith. They were a channel through which God sent his Holy Spirit to bring people to living relationship with Jesus who was behind the miracle. If we neglect this aspect then we can think that they are just signs, and so are unnecessary or even distractions from the reality, or that they are the whole reality and there is nothing more, and we are just left with the physical healing and no spiritual relationship.

The Bible also brings us to faith and is a way in which God strengthens, rebukes and encourages his people. We believe that God speaks through his Word to bring us life (i.e. grace). Again, if we neglect this then the bible could be seen as of no significance to knowing God, or even a hindrance to personal relationship ('the dead letter').

The sacraments also are used by God to bring us life. They speak of Jesus Christ and the promise that he is to us. Therefore, if we believe the promise they speak (of life through death to self in baptism, or life through the death of Christ in the Lord's Supper - among other things) then we will be blessed by God, i.e. through them we will receive grace. If we neglect this, we will have no real understanding of why Jesus instituted these rituals and seek other means by which to be blessed by God (e.g. works).

3. The grace itself

The miracles were actually a gift of Jesus, not just a sign of another gift, or a means to receive it. They were a taste of the complete salvation we wait for in the New Creation, but they were still part of that same dish. If we neglect this we may think that the miracles were not instances where the Kingdom of God was breaking into our present reality, because the Kingdom of God is non-corporeal rather than gloriously physical.

A famine of the Word of God (Amos 8:11) is actually a famine of fellowship with God. God the Father may be speaking about himself in his Son by his Spirit in the Bible, but if he stops speaking to us about himself then we have ceased to have fellowship with him. Speaking to someone over the phone may not be a relationship with that person in all it's fullness, but the speaking is part of the relationship. If we neglect this we may be tempted to think that communication is not what a relationship with our Father is all about, and instead think that some kind of 'mystical union' where words are somehow unnecessary - but that is to loose the personal nature of our relationship.

Finally, and sacraments too are the grace they signify and are means towards. They are not the full enjoyment of the grace, but they are a taste. Jesus is really present in the Lord's Supper (as he is whenever Christian's gather and he is testified too), so we are actually in that life of fellowship with him that the Lord's Supper points us to in its fulfilment in the marriage supper of the Lamb in the New Creation. When received in faith it also really is the life-giving food of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins. Similarly, when received in faith, baptism really does put to death our sinful old nature, and bring to birth new Christ-like life. It is only ever a taste, and the fullness will only be experienced when we fully die and are then raised again on the last day. But it is the same action breaking into our life now, by faith.

When to talk about election

Phil Ryken says:

The famous American Bible teacher Donald Grey Barnhouse (1895–1960) often used an illustration to help people make sense of election. He asked them to imagine a cross like the one on which Jesus died, only so large that it had a door in it. Over the door were these words from Revelation: “Whosoever will may come.” These words represent the free and universal offer of the gospel. By God’s grace, the message of salvation is for everyone. Every man, woman, and child who will come to the cross is invited to believe in Jesus Christ and enter eternal life.

On the other side of the door a happy surprise awaits the one who believes and enters. From the inside, anyone glancing back can see these words from Ephesians written above the door: "Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world." Election is best understood in hindsight, for it is only after coming to Christ that one can know whether one has been chosen in Christ. Those who make a decision for Christ find that God made a decision for them in eternity past.

But I've been thinking. My impression on reading John recently was that Jesus taught election to unbelieving Jews to explain why they didn't accept him. I'll think about it some more.

Reformation recommendations?

I'm toying with the idea of some kind of crash course on Reformation theology. The idea to give a taste of what the Reformation was all about; the excitement, the spirituality, and the big ideas. The plan is to read about 4-6 short original works (e.g. Luther's The Freedom of the Christian), perhaps with Reeves' The Unquenchable Flame as a secondary source.

I've got a few ideas, but would be interested if you have any recommendations. In particular I'm trying to work out a section of Calvin's Institutes to include. What's your favourite 40ish pages of the Institutes?

Two rules:

• Short, but enough to get your teeth into (about 40 pages?)
• Exciting, challenging and heart-warming. Not boring!

More general criteria:

• public domain if possible
• self-contained pieces
• representative range of authors (anything by Cramner or other minor Reformers I may not have read? Anything by a Catholic you can think of? [I can only think of Sadoleto's letter to Geneva])
• representative range of topics (not just justification)

Luther's prayer to receive the Word

Eternal God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, grant us Your Holy Spirit who writes the preached word into our hearts so that we may receive and believe it, and be gladdened and comforted by it in eternity. Glorify Your Word in our hearts. Make it so bright and warm that we may find pleasure in it, and through Your inspiration think what is right. By Your power fulfill the Word, for the sake of Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord. Amen.

(TLWA, p. 38 and endpaper of the LSB)

A structure for quiet times

[This is an attempt to bring together things I've learnt over the last few months from Martin Luther, David Powlison, Gerald Bray and Tim Keller. I've put them into practice to varying degrees, but thought I'd write it all down to help me remember. I've also made myself a pretty A5 sheet, although now I've written it I think I'll remember the content anyway.

Written schemes are helpful to avoid mental blocks and to keep some 'balance' between listening/speaking, yourself/others, praise/request etc. But Luther has two good warnings to heed too: "if in the midst of such thoughts the Holy Spirit beigins to preach in your heart with rich, enlightening thoughts, honor him by letting go of the written scheme. Be still and listen to the one who can do better than you can"; and, "take care, not to undertake all of this or so much that one become weary in spirit."]

• LISTEN to the Bible as God instructs us. Ask questions:
• What does it say about God? What does it say about who he is and about what he does?
• What does it say about us? What are we meant to be and what has gone wrong?
• What happens next? What has God done about this and what does he expect of us in the light of what he has done?
• THANK God for what the Bible reveals about God's character, our situation, God's actions and how we should relate to him.
• CONFESS how you need God because of its:
• Sin's oppression (in your circumstances and in your heart)
• Your active collaboration in its rule
• ASK God to show mercy and act hear us and act in:
• You
• To change our circumstances
• To change us (wisdom and love)
• To display God’s glory
• Prayer list
• To change our circumstances
• To change us (wisdom and love)
• To display God’s glory
• Church and world
• To change our circumstances
• To change us (wisdom and love)
• To display God’s glory
• Meditate on CHRIST and praise him (in his past, present and future work) is the fulfilment of all you heard from the Word about God, and assures us of forgiveness, sanctification and the transformation of all things.

Posts I'll want to return to

Sorry for lack of blogging recently. Revision and other stuff are keeping me from doing much. These are some posts from around and about that whose content I'd like to remember so will need to return to. All worthwhile reading.

• Doug Wilson: Piperian Hedonism 3.0
• GE Ladd (via JT): What You Can and Can’t Do with the Kingdom
• David Powlinson (via JT): The Three Strands of Biblical Prayer
• Kevin DeYoung: One Simple Way to Demonstrate Love and Humility
• Tim Chester: Slow Church
• Tim Keller: Puritan Resources for Biblical Counseling
• CFD Moule (via MB): The Intention of the Evangelists
• 9Marks (via JT): Sermon Application Help
• Tim Chester: Sharing the gospel
• Jason Goroncy: No faith is an island
• Pete Jackson: 'Balance' is tritheistic

Bible study on Mark 10:13-27

Yes, I'm messing with the Christianity Explored bible study again. Here is my week 5 (What is Grace?) bible study on Mark 10:13-27 (instead of 10:17-29):

1. Why would the disciples think that the children should not brought to Jesus to be blessed? (verses 13-16)

• Insignificant. Nothing to offer? Nothing to receive? Jesus would not be interested?

2. How does Jesus respond to the disciples keeping the children away? (verse 14)

• Angry, because he does love them and can bless them.

3. What does verse 17 tell us about the man? What is he concerned about? What does he think of Jesus?

• desperately concerned about salvation
• very respectful of Jesus

4. What has the man done and not done? (verses 19-22)

• commandments v. given away everything and followed Jesus

5. In what ways is the man rich and not rich? (verses 21-22)

• treasures on earth v. heaven

6. Who is good enough to be saved; the rich man or the children?

• Neither. No one is good but God alone.

7. How is the man different from a child?

• child has done nothing and has nothing
• child doesn't love his possessions and his works

BONUS QUESTIONS

This passage describes being describes the same thing in several different ways:

• owning the kingdom of God (v.14)
• receiving the kingdom of God (v.15)
• entering the kingdom of God (vv. 15, 24-25)
• inheriting eternal life (v.17)
• treasure in heaven (v.21)
• being saved (v.26)

What do these different descriptions tell us about the cliché of "being saved"?

The disciples were "amazed" and "even more amazed" at Jesus' teaching about how hard it is for rich people to be saved. They assumed rich people would be saved, and children were of no importance.

Why did they view people differently to Jesus?

Is it impossible for rich people to be saved?

Some thoughts on Mark 10

Mark 10:13-16

The disciples prevent the little children from being brought to Jesus presumably because they thought they had nothing to offer Jesus and/or didn't have capacity to receive anything from him. Jesus explains to the disciples that in fact the Kingdom of God belongs to those like children. They "receive" the Kingdom of God because they have nothing in their hands. They don't even need to have the something which is gives them the capacity to receive (e.g. certain ritual/moral/intellectual preparation). To be human, and particularly to be sinful, is to be in position of utter dependence upon the grace of God for every good thing - including the Kingdom of God.

Mark 10:17-31

The next passage continues the same theme, as Jesus again explains who will inherit the Kingdom, and identifies his disciples as "children" who will (10:24).

The incident of "the man who had everything" (Alan Cole) also highlights the distinction between God and humanity. Only God is good, and only for him is nothing impossible. It is not that rich men cannot enter the Kingdom of God, but that even rich men cannot enter the Kingdom of God because for all men it is impossible.

Jesus' command is not so much that the rich man gives everything he owns to the poor, but that he leaves behind what he has to follow Jesus (that what he does with his wealth is incidental can be seen by comparing with vv.28-29 where the emphasis is again on leaving). Giving away his wealth is not a work that the rich man has to do to earn the right to enter the Kingdom of God, but is just a natural corollary of following Jesus in his itinerant ministry - following Jesus is actually entering the Kingdom of God. Peter boasts that they have "left everything" but Jesus cuts him short by pointing out that actually they has received far more than they have lost.

Money is like the banana in a monkey trap. If the monkey is unwilling to let go of the banana he will never escape. Only by letting go and coming with nothing to offer, whether good works or good things (all of which are gifts from God, not good things we offer him), do we follow Jesus. We can't serve both God and money, and we can't receive the Kingdom of God into a hand already full of stuff.

Why people believe in John's Gospel

This is just about every reference I can find reading through John's Gospel about why people believe. If I've missed any, let me know. I'd be interested if anything strikes you.

• John the Baptist "came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him" (1:7)
• Jesus revealed God (1:18)
• Jesus is revealed because of John's baptism of people (1:31) and by the Spirit descending and remaining on him (1:33)
• Nathanael believed because Jesus said "I saw you under the fig tree" (1:50)
• Disciples believed because of the miracle at Cana (2:11)
• When Jesus was risen they believed "the Scripture AND the word that Jesus had spoken" (2:22)
• Many believed in Jesus when they saw his miracles (2:23)
• He who believes Jesus agrees God is true (3:33)
• Samaritans believed because of the testimony of the Samaritan woman at the well that he knew her past (4:39)
• Then the Samaritans believed because they heard Jesus for themselves (4:41-42)
• Jesus criticises the official at Capernaum for only believing if he sees a sign (4:48), but then believes his word alone (4:50) and then believes again when he sees evidence of the miracle (4:53)
• the person who believes Jesus' word and the Father's testimony has eternal life (5:24)
• John the Baptist is a testimony to Jesus (5:32). But he relativises that as man's testimony, which he appeals to only so people will be saved (5:34). A greater testimony comes from the Father who testifies to who Jesus is by the miracles he gave to Jesus (5:36) and the OT (5:39). To have the Father's word abiding in you means you will believe Jesus (5:38)
• You can't believe if you seek glory from men rather than God (5:44)
• Believing Moses and believing Jesus are inseparable (5:46-47)
• Jesus implies he is his own miracle proving his identity. He is the equivalent of both the manna and Moses. Believing he is the food and eating of him proves he is the food by satisfying. (6:30-40)
• Peter says that they believed and so came to know that Jesus was the Holy One of God (6:69)
• If anyone wishes to obey God then he will know Jesus is from God (7:17)
• People believe Jesus because of the number of miracles he performs (7:31)
• Jesus says that there are two testimonies to who he is. The Father and himself. If you know Jesus you will know the Father (8:14-19)
• People will know who Jesus is when he is crucified (8:28)
• People believe in Jesus because of his teaching (8:30) but Jesus says that they will only "know the truth" if they "abide" in his word (8:31)
• The Jews ought to believe because he tells the truth (8:46), but actually they don't believe exactly because he tells them the truth (8:45)
• The healed blind man is astonished that the miracle of his healing is not sufficient proof for the Pharisees because God only hears his worshippers (9:30).
• People listen to Jesus because as his flock they know him as their good shepherd (10:4-27).
• The works of the Father that Jesus does bear witness to him (10:25), and people don't believe them because they are not part of his flock (10:26). He encourages them to believe on account of either his words or the miracles (10:38).
• People believe John the Baptist's testimony about Jesus, despite John the Baptist performing no miracles (10:41-42)
• If Martha believes Jesus promises her she will see the glory of God (11:40).
• Jesus prays aloud for the raising of Lazarus so that people will believe in him (11:42).
• Many people believe because of Lazarus (12:10-11)
• Some people don't believe despite seeing the miracles (12:37)
• People don't believe because God has blinded them (12:4)
• Belief in Jesus, is primarily belief in the Father (12:44)
• Jesus predicts Judas' betrayal so that when it happens the disciples will believe in him (13:19)
• People will know Jesus' disciples are his disciples by their love for one another (13:35)
• Jesus asks the disciples to believe him, or believe on account of the miracles (14:11)
• Jesus will make himself to his disciples and not the whole world by sending the Spirit for the Trinity to live in the person who loves Jesus and keeps his word (14:23)
• Jesus predicts his ascension and the sending of the Spirit so that when it happens the disciples will believe (14:29)
• Jesus obeys the Father (by dying?) so that the world will know that he loves the Father (14:31).
• The disciples claim to believe Jesus on the basis of his non-figurative teaching (16:29-30), despite Jesus saying the his teaching is figurative at that time (16:25), although it won't be when he sends the Spirit. Jesus doubts that they really believe already though (16:31).
• The disciples came to know that Jesus is of the Father because of his words (17:6-8)
• People will come to believe through the Apostles speech and by their unity (17:20-21).
• John claims that he has seen the events and knows they are true so his readers should believe on his testimony (19:35).
• Thomas doesn't believe on the testimony of the other disciples (20:25), but believes when he sees the risen Christ (20:28). However, Jesus implies that he should have believed on the disciples' testimony alone, and that others who believe without seeing are blessed (20:29).
• John explains that he recounts the miracles of Jesus so that his readers may believe (20:31).

Some reflections:

• Belief in the Father and the OT is inseparable from belief in Jesus.
• The testimony of John and the Samaritan woman is of secondary importance to the testimony of Jesus to himself and the testimony of the Father in miracles and the OT. But it is valid.
• Belief, obedience and humble searching after God are inseparable.
• Believing is only the beginning. In some cases knowledge of Jesus as the Holy One of God, and seeing the glory of God comes later. Also belief on the basis of testimony of other men, or of miracles, can grow into belief on the basis of Jesus' own words.
• It is implied that people can only fully know who Jesus is after his death and resurrection and the sending of the Spirit.
• Belief in Jesus is not an end in itself but should lead to belief in the Father.
• Belief is dependant on supernatural work of opening blind eyes, and only belongs to the elect.
• The disciples loving unity and spoken testimony is how people are expected to believe after Jesus has ascended.

Paul's boasting before the judgment seat of Christ

Paul tells asks the Thessalonians "what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?" (1 Thessalonians 2:19).

Similarly he finds the Philippians his "joy and crown" too (Philippians 4:1). But on Judgement Day Paul will even boast about the Corinthian church (2 Corinthians 1:14), for all their problems.

When he says that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Corinthians 5:10), I think the context demands we see "what he has done" as primarily the results of his missionary work. If that is the case it is striking how 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 parallels Philippians 3:20-4:1. In both Paul looks forward to Christ's second coming, bemoans his current mortal body, but anticipates receiving a new resurrection body, and finally looks forward to boasting in the churches he has planted.

The Great Commission of Cyrus

The last verse of the Hebrew Bible is remarkably similar to the end of the Gospel of Matthew:

"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him. Let him go up'" (2 Chronicles 36:23)

"Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.'" (Matthew 28-18-20)

Both explain that they have been given kingly authority (by God) over the whole earth. Both commission a group of people to leave their homes to build a temple; in one case the Second Jerusalem Temple, in the other the temple of the church. Both promise that God will go with them; the Jews by "the LORD", the Apostles by Jesus.

(Once again, credit to Greg Beale.)

Jesus as the Second Adam in Colossians 1

In Colossians 1 Jesus is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation...the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead" (vv.15-18).

He images God, just as Adam did. He is the firstborn of creation, like Adam was. He is the head of a family, just as Adam was. His family will multiply and increase to cover the whole earth too, and according to verses 4-5 this happens as the gospel spreads over the whole earth and the church grows in numbers, good works and knowledge ( "the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing", cf. v.10).

Lines could be drawn to Acts 6:7; 12:23; 19:20 where the word of God increases, Romans 6, the Great Commission, and all the 'new Adam' figures in the OT who also receive their own mandate/promise of increase (i.e. Noah, Abraham, etc - Gen 9:1, 6-7; 12:2; 17:2,6,8; 22:17-18; 26:34,24; 28:3-4; 35:11-12; 47:27; Ex 1:7; Lev 26:9; Ps 107:38; Is 51:2; Jer 3:16; 23:3; Ezek 36:10-11, 29-30)... anything else?

All credit to Greg Beale.

Happy Easter!

It's Sunday today!

The first Christians neither lived nor thought in terms of a [church] year; they lived in terms of a week and they thought of the work of redemption in terms of a week. In this way concentration on the cross and the resurrection was even more marked than it has ever since succeeded in being. Where the Early Church made a new beginning from the point of view of the calendar was the keeping of Sunday, the first day of the week, the day following the Sabbath. Sunday was a day of gladness, because Christ rose at dawn on that day, the first working day of the Jewish week (Mark 16.1 f.). Every week the earliest Christian congregations met for an Easter festival. Continually, with the interval of only a few days, Easter returned anew

[...but,] in the faith of the Early Church the resurrection is linked with the cross and with death. Therefore the suffering of Christ was given a place in the weekday and the Christian community early in its history came to regard Wednesday and Friday as two 'station days' in his suffering. Wednesday was the day of the betrayal, Friday the day of the death. Accordingly, the Didache and Hermas (beginning of the second century) speak of the keeping of these two days. In this way the whole week is devoted to Christ's death and resurrection. Station days are the feast of the cross, Sunday is the feast of the resurrection. On station days the rule was to bow down and bend the knee, on Sunday to stand up and look towards heaven, in free and erect position, singing praise.

pp. 192-193, The Living Word, Gustaf Wingren)

If weekdays are work in the world for most Christians, and Sunday is when we gather together and rest, then that I think that says something about the posture we ought to have as we engage with the world and do our work - i.e. it should be self-sacrificial.

Some theological stuff I've recently found on the net

Audio/video

• A series of short youtube videos by St John's Nottingham. Little introductions to theologians, subjects in Biblical Studies etc. I enjoyed those on Pannenberg and von Balthasar as I didn't know anything about them. (HT Glen.)
• Also involving Tom Wright was the 19th Annual Wheaton Theology Conference devoted to discussing his work. Some excellent lectures (MP3/video). I thought Richard Hays was the highlight. It was my first big engagement with Wright for a while. Frankly I had forgotten how sharp and articulate he is. He is always encouraging you to rethink everything. I came away with respect renewed.
• Lectures and sermons delivered at Moore College, Sydney. Includes Wright again. Also Helmut Thielicke, Henri Blocher, FF Bruce, PT O'Brien and Barry Webb. (HT Chris.)
• Edmund Clowney lectures and sermons.
• Francis Schaeffer lectures and sermons.

Articles

• Archives of the mainline Lutheran journal Word & World. Includes articles by Walter Brueggemann, Gerhard Forde, Terence Fretheim, David Lose, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Gordon Wenham and others. I've only read the ones by David Lotz and Gustaf Wingren.
• Archives from Bulletin for Biblical Research.
• Archives of the Tyndale Bulletin.

I increasingly love books. Articles and MP3s are great - but they are only ever tasters. But as I only stumbled across these recently I thought other's may be interested.

True sovereignty

God is man's rightful Lord, Satan a false lord, a usurper, a thief, a robber. This distinction between God and the Devil, their contrasted claim on man, is not something which should be added to the contrast between life and death to complete that contrast, for Satan's subordination to God and his helplessness before God are implied in that very contrast itself. When it is said that God is life, it is implied that man becomes man by receiving from God; and when Satan is said to be death, it is implied that man loses his humanity when under the legitimacy of God's claim, and of Satan's, on man is a question that provides its own answer, as is always the case when true sovereignty emerges: the dispute is not settled in favour of the rightful claimant, instead it is clear that the rightful claimant never disputes with the underling but allows him to be just who he is, and thus proceeds with his work using the subordinate usurper as his tool without taking away his evil. So shall it be at the last day when the faithful of the Lord shall attain to fulness of vision and shall see that the death, discipline and evil under which they suffered on earth, ad in which Satan always works, but brought them nearer to life and destroyed the hold that sin, their enemy, had on their inmost being. The enemy executes that which God has determined shall be.

(pp. 93-94, The Living Word, Gustaf Wingren)

Christianity Explored Week 4 Bible Study

I've rather foolishly re-written the week 4 bible study for Christianity Explored. As I was studying the passage I became convinced that it, and the whole of Mark was more eschatological than the questions were giving credit for. I also had a nagging doubt about the significance of the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida.

I also felt that I needed to re-jig certain things for this particular group. I'm not sure I've fully succeeded but here are my questions.

Link to PDF file

Multiplying grain

"the Gospel miracles are ... acted parables of the kingdom." (FF Bruce)

The Parable of the Sower (Mark 4) describes grain multiplying many times over. It is followed by Jesus asking the disciples "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?"

The Feeding of the Five Thousand (Mark 6) describes grain multiplying many times over. It is followed by an explanation that the disciple "did not understand [the acted parable] about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened".

The Feeding of the Four Thousand (Mark 8) describes grain multiplying many times over. It is followed by Jesus asking the disciples "Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?".

Any thoughts?

Directions how to hear sermons (by Charles Simeon)

'Take heed therefore how ye hear' (Luke 8:18)

The office of a Christian minister is arduous. He is to explain and enforce every part of man's duty: he is to search out and censure every sin. After all his labours he will see but little fruit. However faithfully he preach, there are but few who will hear aright. This our Lord had just declared in the parable of the sower. He then enforced His declaration with this most important caution.

1. THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR LORD'S CAUTION

Our Lord elsewhere cautions His people to take heed what they hear; nor can any thing be more necessary than to be on our guard against error. But the caution how we hear was also necessary for the following reasons.

1. Because many hear in an unbecoming manner.

a. The generality are careless hearers. They attend God's house merely in conformity with the customs of the country. They suffer their thoughts to rove after earthly and carnal things. They discern very little difference in the doctrines which they hear. They, like Gallio, seem to 'care for none of these things'.

b. Many are critical hearers. They can attend to nothing which is not composed with elegance; or they affect only what accords with their own views of religion. They judge of all they hear by a standard of their own. Hence they form parties, and set up one minister against another (cf. 1 Cor 3:3,4)

c. Many also are captious hearers. They will not hear any thing which militates against their prejudices . They cannot bear to have their favourite habits condemned. They are offended if their bosom lusts be faithfully reproved. They too much resemble the scribes and Pharisees of old. (See Luke 11:45; Mark 6:17,18; Luke 11:54.) While there continue such hearers, the caution will be necessary.

2. Because God Himself speaks to us by the preacher.

Ministers are ambassadors for God, and speak in Christ's stead. If they preach what is founded on the Scriptures, their word, as far as it is agreeable to the mind of God, is to be considered as God's. This is asserted by our Lord and His apostles. We ought therefore to receive the preacher's word as the word of God Himself. With what humility then ought we to attend to it! What judgments may we not expect, if we slight it. Surely therefore on this account also we need the caution in the text. (See 2 Cor 5:20; John 13:20; 1 Thes 4:8, 2:13.)

3. Because every discourse increases either our salvation or condemnation.

The word delivered is either a savour of life or of death. Our Lord Himself intimates this reason for the caution in the verse from which our text is taken. Hence our Lord's preaching eventually enhanced the guilt of the Jews. The same awful effects will be felt by those who slight His ministers. What stronger reasons for such a caution can possibly be imagined? (See 2 Cor 2:15,16; John 15:22.)

II. OBEYING OUR LORD'S CAUTION

An humble mind will naturally receive instruction in a proper manner.

1. We should hear with candour.

We cannot too carefully divest ourselves of prejudices. We should not call any man 'master' upon earth. We should rather weigh what we hear, in the balance of the sanctuary; but we ought to have our minds open to conviction. We should receive the seed in 'an honest and good heart': we should 'receive with meekness the engrafted word': nor can we hope to profit, if we do not cultivate this disposition. (See Matt 23:10; 1 Thes 5:21; Luke 8:15; James 1:21.)

2. We should hear with a desire to profit.

The Word of God is profitable for many blessed purposes; yet it cannot be serviceable to us if it be not received in faith. But, when applied to the soul, its operation is very powerful. We should therefore at all times apply it to ourselves. We should go to the ordinances, as the sick to Bethesda's pool. Nor do we ever hear aright except when we attend in this spirit. It is the practical hearer only that derives benefit to his soul. (See 2 Tim 3:16,17; Heb 4:2,12; 1 Pet 2:2; James 1:22-25.)

3. We should hear with humble dependence on God's Spirit.

It is God alone who 'teacheth us to profit'. Human labours, without His blessing will be in vain. It is His work to open the understanding and the heart. To Him therefore should we look for the teaching of His Spirit. We should plead the promise which God has given us. In this way we shall experience much benefit from the Word. No obstacles whatever shall be able to withstand its power:L it shall be a rich source of grace and wisdom to us. (See Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14; Is 55:10,11; 2 Cor 10:4; Col 3:16.)

Let us then offer in sincerity that petition in the Litany. 'That it may please thee to give to all thy people increase of grace, to hear meekly thy Word, and to receive it with pure affection, and to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit.'

[From Let Wisdom Judge: University Addresses and Sermon Outlines by Charles Simeon (Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1959, pp. 188-190).

My feelings about this sermon outline are quite mixed. I was prompted to read it today after I found it referenced in Christopher Ash's little booklet Listen Up! A practical guide to listening to sermons. I think Ash has drawn a lot from Simeon, and I respect them both a great deal. I hope to explain later why I'm quite torn about the advice of Ash and Simeon... perhaps you can guess why... It may be another 2 weeks though. I'm revising at the moment.]

Reading too much?

It is far from my intention to depreciate the value or deny the usefulness of books, without exception: a few well-chosen treatises, carefully perused and thoroughly digested, will deserve and reward our pains; but a multiplicity of reading is seldom attended with a good effect.

Besides the confusion it often brings upon the judgment and memory, it occasions a vast expense of time, indisposes for close thinking, and keeps us poor, in the midst of seeming plenty, by reducing us to live upon a foreign supply, instead of labouring to improve and increase the stock of our own reflections.

- John Newton in his letter "A Plan of a Compendious Christian Library" (Works of John Newton, Volume 1, 236). Paragraphing added, HT DG.

I'm not sure if that is entirely true. But its worth reflecting on.

Bible study on Colossians 4:2-6

Sorry for the lack of posting recently.

For what it's worth here is a bible study I've written on the 5 verses of Colossians 4:2-6. I've tried to make a meal out of 82 words by bringing in the whole of chapter 1, and then through that bringing to mind all or Paul's ministry!

We'll see whether it works.

It took ages to write, mainly because it took me a while to figure out how to do the formatting in MS Word 2007.

Mourning with those who mourn

Listening to: Fairport Convention: Leige and Leif

I'm finally reading Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands: People in Need of Change Helping People in Need of Change by Paul Tripp. It is living up to all the hype I have heard. Highly recommended.

These are my notes on Chapter 8 (Building Relationships by Identifying with Suffering) and the third element of four which Tripp identifies a part of a "Loving Ministry Relationship":

1. Enter the person's world
2. Incarnate the love of Christ
3. Identify with suffering
4. Accept with agenda [for their change]

Suffering is common

We are all sinners who suffer. This is something we have in common with everyone. Yet we often respond to sufferers by distancing ourselves from them. We presume that their suffering is something we won't experience, and struggle to relate to them. As a result our ministry often boils down to platitudes, promises of prayer, and gestures.

The bible on suffering:

1. God is sovereign over suffering
2. God is good
3. God has a purpose for our suffering
4. The bible explains the ultimate reasons for our suffering
• Fallen world
• our flesh
• other's sin
• the Devil
• God's good purpose
5. Suffering is real and evil is wrong.

Sufferers usually feel alone, isolated and alienated from others and from God.

If we have suffered to the extent that we know these feelings then:

• This means we can identify with sufferers.
• We are called minister to those in pain.

Hebrews 2:10-12

Christ suffered as our brother. The title "brother" implies:

1. We are in the same family.
2. We are in a similar position in the family
3. We share similar life experiences

This captures our relationship to sufferers. We do not stand above them, as gurus, or those who have arrived. Instead we stand alongside them.

This posture is essential because it recognises that:

1. "God sends people my way, not only so they will change, but so I will too."
2. "We are not what people need. Our purpose is to connect them to a living, active, redeeming Christ. He gives them what they need...I stand alongside you and point you to the Father.
3. It helps to give our stories power, because as we are honest about our failings and sufferings, it shows the relevance of our experiences of God's grace.

Christ was "made perfect" through his suffering. Just as Christ's suffering had a purpose, so our suffering has a purpose. Analogous to Christ, we are sanctified and grow through suffering. We share this with our brothers and sisters who suffer, and it:

• Makes truth we speak concrete, carrying them out of the abstract into the familiar.
• Encourages us to be humble and honest.
• Makes our personal story more about God than me.
• Makes our life a window through which people see the glory of Christ.
• Results in worship of Christ

2 Corinthians 1:3-11

Model of Christian compassion (vv.3-7):

Purposeful suffering --> experience of God's comfort --> ability to comfort others --> community of hope.

• God is the source of compassion. Therefore:
  • God is the comfort we offer people (not 'it will all work out' etc)
  • As God's children we should be marked by his compassion
• The comfort we have received in past suffering is to be passed on in ministry, not hoarded.
• Suffering is how we share in Christ, and so experience his comfort. It is a sign we are in Christ.
• Our suffering belongs to God, and we must put Christ on centre stage as we suffer. "When we feel like dying, he calls us to greater death".
• Purpose of suffering is to fill us with hope.

Method of Christian compassion (vv.8-11):

Practical steps for telling your stories of how God used your sufferings to encourage others:

• Tell a completed story
• It must be old enough to have reached it's ending in how God helped you (not "misery loves company")
• Be honest in describing your struggles and failures
• Be discerning and purposeful
• Limit details.
• Focus on God
• Make God the key actor in the drama
• Tell your story with humility about your continuing need for grace.
• Make it clear that you are not what God needs - God is
• Make the goal of the story worship.

Which antithesis?

I'm reading The Living Word: A Theological Study of Preaching and the Church by Swedish Lutheran Gustaf Wingren. A wonderful £3 buy second-hand. I'm loving it.

It seems a shame to first blog some quotations from it in criticism of Barth, but I think his criticism is of far-reaching proportions. In short he sees Barth as locating a fundamental antithesis between God and humanity that he should instead find between God and the Devil, life and death, Gospel and law. I think this is of enormous importance.

for Barth God and man are opposed to each other, and the question with which he is faced is where the emphasis is to be placed. Liberal theology, against which Barth reacted, emphasized man's significance and put him centre. Barth's alternative is to emphasize God's significance and to put him in the centre. Negatively it is of fundamental importance that Satan and sin play a very uncertain and minor role in Barth's theological system. Thus in no way is the approach of the theology that preceded it corrected, but instead the speculative antithesis between man and God remains unchanged [...] It is striking that time and again in his writings Barth reiterates his criticism, most consistent and clear, of Luther's doctrine of the unity of human and divine in Christ, the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum ["sharing of attributes"].

The meaning of the communicatio idiomatum remains obscure until it is seen against the background of man's subjection to the Devil. God and man do not stand opposed to each other as two incompatible and parallel forms of being, but God and the Devil stand opposed as enemies. Man is God's creation who has been brought into captivity by the enemy of God. Christ's task is to enter human life, destroy Satanic might and free man. Christ's humanity is no limitation of the majesty of God, as Barth argues. Christ's humanity is the conqueror's - God's - presence on the field of battle where Satan is to be laid low in the conqueror's death and resurrection and forced to let go his grip on men [...]

The centre of gravity of the preaching of the Early Church was in Christ's death and resurrection, not in the incarnation [...] If the cross and the resurrection are to retain their New Testament position at the centre of the message, then a revision of the opposition between transcendence and immanence must be brought about. The Lutheran dualism of law and Gospel in the Word performs just that very revising, anti-speculative function. God's work meets us, sub contraria specie ["under contrary appearances"], hidden under the work of death. It must be so, since we are in thrall to sin; when our sin, which insists on ruling in our being, is killed, we receive life but it seems as though it were death. The lifegiving function of the Gospel is indissolubly bound up with the condemnatory and punitive function of the law; the cross is fast bound with the resurrection. If this intrinsic duality of law and Gospel is abandoned and replaced, as in Barth, by a single 'Word' above the law and the Gospel, then there follows also a new metaphysical cleavage, so that within the single Word we discover a higher, transcendent sphere, the Word of God (Gottes Wort) and a lower sphere, the word of man (Menschenswort). Thereby the Platonic doctrine of two worlds becomes supreme in theology. What is specifically theological and Christian is introduced later in the thesis that 'God' and 'man' meet and are brought together in the Incarnation. But in that case the mere meeting between God and man becomes the centre of the New Testament, while struggle and victory in the death and resurrection have lost their place as the centre of the kerygma. This is the chief accusation that must be brought against Karl Barth's theology.

(pp. 31f, 92, 1949, The Living Word)

Any thoughts on whether Wingren is reading Barth rightly?

I think that even if the critique doesn't stick to Barth, it sticks to much less sophisticated theology.

Water and the Spirit in the Gospel of John

"for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel...I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'" (1:31-33)

"When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine.' ... Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, 'Fill the jars with water.' And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, 'Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.' So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, 'Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.'" (2:3-10)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (3:5)

"A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, 'Give me a drink.' ... The Samaritan woman said to him, 'How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?' (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, 'If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, "Give me a drink," you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.' The woman said to him, 'Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.' Jesus said to her, 'Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.' The woman said to him, 'Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.'... God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (4:7-24)

"Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades. In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed. One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, 'Do you want to be healed?' The sick man answered him, 'Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.” Jesus said to him, 'Get up, take up your bed, and walk.' And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked." (5:2-8)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him....It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." (6:53-63)

"On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, 'If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."' Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." (7:37-39)

"[Jesus] anointed the man's eyes with the mud and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing." (9:6-7)

"He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, 'Lord, do you wash my feet?' Jesus answered him, 'What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.' Peter said to him, 'You shall never wash my feet.' Jesus answered him, 'If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.' Simon Peter said to him, 'Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!' Jesus said to him, 'The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.'"(13:4-11)

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth (14:15-17)

"After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), 'I thirst.' A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, 'It is finished,' and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit... one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water." (19:28-34)

"Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'" (20:21-22)

A few things to notice:

• The connection between water, wine, blood, thirsting and washing with Spirit and life.
• Jesus gave up his Spirit and his life in order to give us both. He became thirsty so that we may never have to thirst again. He gave up his Spirit so he could baptise us with it.

"There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel's veins..." (Cowper)

A brief thought on fasting

Most conservative evangelicals functionally believe that we shouldn't fast, even if theoretically they think it is appropriate in the church age. This is probably due to the lack of interest in the physical and (not unconnected) right suspicion of justification by works.

God is not pleased with fasting in and of itself (Is 58:3), and it is not something that he needs to receive from us. Fasting is not something with inherent worth that we can present to God, although he does respond to his people fasting as he does to prayer.

However, I think evangelicals would be more likely to give it a place as a discipline which bears on us rather than God. I think it is often seen as a way to develop self-control, holiness and a desire for God (ala John Piper?). However, this seems to ignore that the Bible seems to see it as a response to felt need, practised irregularly in order to obtain a particular blessing from God.

Perhaps, it is better to see it joined with prayer as an expression of need. Like donning sackcloth and ashes it is not something we offer to God as some 'thing' but an expression of how empty we are before God.

We feel we need God's blessing, so we express that in words by prayer. But as psychosomatic beings we should express particularly serious awareness of need physically as well. It is not uncommon for those suffering from depression, and other mental illnesses, to suffer a loss of appetite. Even if we haven't experienced that most of us know what it is like to be sufficiently preoccupied or stressed to 'not feel like eating'. Fasting in the Bible is tied to these extreme times of mourning or crisis where food should be the last thing on our mind.

This does not mean that we should just fast when we feel like it though, just as we should not only pray when we feel like it. It is good to fast when we know we should fast even if we don't feel like it; just as it is good to pray when we know we should pray even if we don't feel like it.

I hope that makes sense.

What I've been up to

Sorry for the lack of blogging recently. I've been busy, not reading enough weighty books and simply not in the mood. But I'm still alive and well so don't worry. Here are a few things I've been thinking about that may possibly interest you.

• Just finished What Kind of God? Responding to 10 popular accusations by Michael Ots and it is really great book. Winsome, brief and thoughtful. I now finally have the giveaway book for non-Christians with moral objections to the Christian faith. It can go alongside Real Life Jesus: meaning, freedom, purpose which is my book for non-Christians interested in what Christianity is all about. Now 'all' I need is a giveaway book for people with scientific/historical objections to Christianity. Any thoughts welcome.
• The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God by Greg Beale has picked up on reaching the NT, and if I was in the mood I'd be blogging loads of reflections on it.
• I've been reminding myself how great Lesslie Newbigin and Martin Luther are.
• Daniel Montgomery of Sojourn Community Church has been thinking about exactly what Tim Keller was talking about in my last post on triperspectival application and communicates it nicely in this video:
• I've said it before, but listen to these Tim Keller/Ed Clowney lectures if you are thinking about applying the Bible to people's lives in a Christ-centred, grace-filled and culturally sensitive way. Counterfeit Gods is a good example of the principles being put into practice.
• This may also be a good point to remind people that I keep trying to keep a post with links to Mike Reeves MP3s up-to-date. I've just added links to talks on Aquinas. Mike Reeves' passion for the Gospel, God and historical theology is infectious. He is a uniquely gifted man.
• Oh, and I had the honour of doing a couple of blog posts in Glen's Exodus series on Bezalel and Oholiab and the Priests' Garments.

Hopefully things will get more interesting around here soon.