FD Maurice's famous dictum

"A man is most often right in what he affirms and wrong in what he denies." Why is that?

I was recently skim reading a bit of Lesslie Newbigin in which he makes two great statements we could all do with absorbing, but commits the error Maurice saw so often:

"election is for responsibility, not for privilege"

[Christ] bears witness to the presence of the reign of God, not by overpowering the forces of evil, but by taking their full weight upon himself"

Surely in both instances it is both!

I admit I often do the same though. Why do the best of us, make this mistake over and over again?

Why the deepest truth has to be mythic

Listening to: Laura Marling: I speak because I can

Why don't we abstract all the truth found in the Bible and cast of the 'husk' of story, and 'myth'?

CS Lewis argues that the mythic elements of Christianity are actually the "vital and nourishing element in the whole concern". The story of the Bible is the "substance", and not "vestigial".

"And yet the human intellect is incurably abstract. Pure mathematics is the type of successful thought. Yet the only realities we experience are concrete - this pain, this pleasure, this dog, this man. While we are loving the man, bearing the pain, enjoying the pleasure, we are not intellectually apprehending Pleasure, Pain or Personality. When we begin to do so, on the other hand, the concrete realities sink to the level of mere instances or examples: we are no longer dealing with them, but with that which they exemplify. This is our dilemma - either to taste and not to know or to know and not to taste [...] As thinkers we are cut off from what we think about; as tasting, touching, willing, loving, hating, we do do not clearly understand. The more lucidly we think, the more we are cut off: the more deeply we enter into reality the less we can think. You cannot study Pleasure in the moment of the nuptial embrace, nor repentance while repenting, nor analyse the nature of humour while roaring with laughter. But when else can you really know these things? [...]

Of this tragic dilemma myth is the partial solution. In the enjoyment of a great myth we come nearest to experiencing as a concrete what can otherwise be understood only as an abstraction. [...]

Now as myth transcends thought, Incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact."

("Myth became fact" in CS Lewis: Essay Collection: Faith, Christianity and the Church)

Knowing we're not dreaming

Esther Meek defines Knowing as "the responsible human struggle to rely on clues to focus on a coherent pattern and submit to its reality". We integrate subsidiary clues, but only as we focus on a pattern and not the clues. But how do we know that the pattern we focus on is actually real? Meek suggests that in all knowing two accompanying experiences make us feel that our focal pattern is a discovery and not an invention.

1. Growing out of our past - the profundity of the pattern. We "sense the richness, the profundity, of the pattern [that is] grander than the clues on which it relies." We find the pattern "more than makes sense of the clues [it] unites and transforms them into a fresh center, in light of which the clues gain profounder meaning. The pattern evokes uncanny harmonies and resonances between things that once appeared disparate. The gaps become meaningful hiddennesses."
2. Growing into our future - unspecifiable future prospects. "In the moment of a profound integration, we experience a sense of the future possibilities, prospects, horizons of the thing we have encountered. There are sides we cannot currently see, behaviors we suspect but could never predict, implications only some of which we can reason out, but which in their inompleteness may lead us to uncover new and transforming dimensions."

[Notes on Chapter 16 of Longing to Know: The philosophy of knowledge for ordinary people]

The Song of Solomon and Abishag?

Listening to: Seth Lakeman: Kitty Jay

When David was growing very old, and was quite unwell, his servants "sought for a beautiful young woman throughout all the territory of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The young woman was very beautiful, and she was of service to the king and attended to him, but the king knew her not" (1 Kings 1:3-4).

David's son, Adonijah, attempts to become king, but David makes Solomon king in time to stop the coup. Adonijah's allies desert him and he pays homage to Solomon, so managing to avoid death. After David's death Adonijah approaches Solomon's mother, Bathsheba, to ask Solomon on his behalf if he can marry Abishag (2:13-17). When Bathsheba asks Solomon for this he reacts furiously:

"King Solomon answered his mother, 'And why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also, for he is my older brother, and on his side are Abiathar the priest and Joab the son of Zeruiah.' Then King Solomon swore by the Lord, saying, 'God do so to me and more also if this word does not cost Adonijah his life! Now therefore as the Lord lives, who has established me and placed me on the throne of David my father, and who has made me a house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death today.' So King Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and he struck him down, and he died." (2:23-25)

We don't hear of Abishag the Shunammite again... or do we?

In the Song of Songs 6:13 it seems we find a bride who is a Shulammite (Heb. sulammit) due to marry Solomon. The meaning of 'Shulammite' is uncertain, but it could indicate an inhabitant of the town of Shunem (p. 1217, Eerdman's Bible Dictionary). I.e. she could be a Shunammite (Heb. sunammit). It would seem very fitting for Abishag to be the Shulammite of Song of Songs.

If Abishag is the concubine of David, who he never had sex with, but who later married Solomon, how does that affect our interpretation of the Song of Songs?

... Dave Bish, you're the expert, I'm looking at you!

The essence of the Christian religion

Shamelessly stolen from Tony Reinke because I'd like to remember it. A stripped down Apostles' Creed with a touch more of a redemptive-historical flavour?

"The essence of the Christian religion consists in the reality that

the creation of the Father,

ruined

by sin,

is restored

in the death of the Son of God,

and re-created

by the grace of the Holy Spirit

into a kingdom of God."

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1:61.

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.