Stockholm Syndrome and the French Underground

Steven Paulson does have a great turn of phrase sometimes. Take these for a few examples:

"Christ gave this description when he said in Mark 3:27, that the Strong Man must be bound before his house can be pillaged, and Christ had come to do just that. Yet, it is an odd reality, called in the modern world the "Stockholm syndrome," that prisoners identify themselves with their captors, and even desire in their hearts to be imprisoned to them" (p.159, Lutheran Theology)

"Being a theologian of the cross means the Christian's life is hid under the sign of its opposite (death, bondage, suffering) so that the prisoner of sin has now become the French underground, the embedded terrorist to the body of sin, and so faith is not the end of struggle but its beginning." (p. 171, ibid)

Last words

In the last few months of his life Karl Barth was on a radio program which was a bit like Desert Island Discs ("Music for a Guest – A radio Broadcast"). The transcript can be found in the book Final Testimonies.

Near the beginning of the program he states that "What I hear in Mozart is a final word about life insofar as this can be spoken by man". Therefore, perhaps it is appropriate that he ends the program with this brilliant paragraph about God's Word about life in Christ, and Mozart's music addressed to the Word.

Grace itself is only a provisional word. The last word that I have to say as a theologian or politician is not a concept like grace but a name: Jesus Christ. He is grace and he is the ultimate one beyond world and church and even theology. We cannot lay hold of him. But we have to do with him. And my own concern in my long life has been increasingly to emphasize this name and to say: "In him." There is no salvation but in this name. In him is grace. In him is the spur to work, warfare, and fellowship. In him is all that I have attempted in my life in weakness and folly. It is there in him. I suggest then that we finish with Mozart as a sacred composer. I myself have always been very fond of the little Missa Brevis in D Major, again by the young Mozart... I suggest that we play the conclusion: Agnus dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis, dona nobis pacem: "O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us, grant us thy peace". This is what we shall now hear.

Enjoy!

God who offers too little or too much to the sufferer

I believe that one of the most important discoveries of Trinitarian theology in our time is the discovery of the suffering love of the suffering triune God. All cheap and easy talk about a God of sovereign power who is in control of a world in which there is so much poverty, suffering and injustice is obscene... The only gospel that makes sense and can help in what Moltmann calls our "godless and godforsaken" world is the good news of a god who loves enough to suffer with and for a suffering humanity.

But such a gospel, especially as it has caught on and become popular, has its dangers too. Too much talk about the "presence" of God in "solidarity" with suffering can become a way of hiding a deep skepticism about whether God is powerful enough to do anything about their suffering... People who suffer for one reason or another want more than just "God suffers with you and we Christians do too." They want to know whether there are a God and a people of God who can and will do anything to help them. Whether they know it or not, they want to hear about and experience the good news of a Trinitarian God who wills and preserves life, who liberates oppressed people from whatever or whoever oppresses them. They want to hear about and experience a crucified and risen Christ who is stronger than the powers of sickness, suffering, sin, and death. They want to hear about and experience the power of the Holy Spirit who brings new life where there is death and new beginnings where there are dead ends.

One of the biggest problems in theology today is how we can find our way between a theology of the suffering love of God that offers too little and a theology of the sovereign power of God that promises too much. I believe that the solution lies in thinking through the implications of what we said earlier about faith in the sovereignty of God as hope for the future - faith that God's loving and just will will be done.

(italics original, pp. 53-54, Shirley Guthrie, Always being reformed: faith for a fragmented world)

I just stumbled across this quotation by accident. It is from a man who turns out to be a significant American mainline Presbyterian. I think it is a great reflection of someone who has thought and lived deeply.

As I mused on it it struck me that the measure of whether we believe that God is both these things is prayer. You do not pray to someone who you think does not sympathise with your condition, but also you don't pray to someone who you think can do nothing about it. Therefore, one of the best ways we can communicate to a sufferer that God is both sympathetic and is powerful is praying for/with them.

Hearing is believing - at least in this age

"Faith is in something, it needs some-thing to believe; specifically it lives from an incarnate and crucified promise, who is none other than Christ, the promised Messiah." (p.199, Paulson, Lutheran Theology)

"Faith is never without a thing in which it trusts; but when faith's "thing" is a promise from God whose "yes" is Christ, then it has something that "counts" before God. Christ counts before God - not as a token of law, but quite apart from the law since the Father gives everything to the Son, and the Son gives everything back freely" (p. 122)

"Faith does not stand upon what it feels or sees; it is only an ear and the ear listens solely to Christ" (p.136)

"In faith we do not see glory; instead we see suffering, and if that were not enough, by the seventh chapter of Romans, Paul says we feel and see in our own flesh the very sin that Christ is promised to have taken and defeated. Everything promised to faith seems to be taken away immediately in experience: glory turns to suffering; seeing turns to hearing; resurrection to dying" (p.141)

"Boasting in a hope that is not yet seen is exercising a freedom of speech that the world does not know by means of suffering God's love - not being attracted to it" (p.148)

Paulson's Lutheranism is sadly an under-realised version which is clearer on death than resurrection. In that it stands in bold contrast with a contemporary Christian culture that is dominated by an over-realised eschatology. I will never forget Dick Lucas' comment that Christians today are great at speaking about faith and love, but poor at hope. We are profoundly a this-worldly church and yet simultaneously world-despising church because we do not look to the future through the past in Christ (not just for salvation but revelation).

Christ is what was promised (so we do see him) but also the promise of the future (which we hear of and do not yet see). You could say we see in a mirror dimly!

To say that we see Christ's loveliness clearly is to teach sinless perfectionism and that the resurrection has already happened (2 Tim 2:18). On the other hand to say that we only see the ugly crucified man who bids us die and not the loveliness of the resurrected Saviour that bids us live is to deny the new-birth and presence of the Spirit.

[Very rough notes... maybe I'll write a post soon... but long work-days are catching up on me]

The parable of the Great Banquet

I was chatting today with a friend who is preaching on the Parable of the Great Banquet in Luke 14:15-23 soon.

It's a popular passage, and rightly so. It beautifully depicts the free offer of the Gospel and the celebratory and joyful nature of the Kingdom of God. However, from Luke 14:15-23 alone you could easily gloss over the brief mention of anger and preach the Gospel as a nice invitation to a party that is worth accepting, but that if you choose to try out your oxen or spend time with your wife then that's okay. You're missing out, but each to his own.

Matthew's account in 22:1-14 is a bit more chilling. In his account the servant carrying the invitation is killed and the king responds by destroying the murderers and burning their city. A guy then turns up without a wedding garment and is cast out into the outer darkness. There is still a party, but I suspect Luke's account is the more popular one today.

But my friend pointed out that Luke's account in chapter 14 follows chapter 13 which includes some stark warnings of its own. For example, Jesus in verse 22 is the servant carrying the invitation by preaching the through the towns and villages. He is the door into the Kingdom of God, but there will be a time when the door will be shut and people will plead to enter but will not be admitted. Outside the house he says there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' but inside there will be feasting (vv. 28-29).

Luke's Jesus is not the 'nice' Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke depict a Jesus who preaches judgement to come. Very sobering for me to be reminded.

Justification = adoption

I think justification is an under-appreciated doctrine, and that's partly because it has been cut off from Jesus.

Justification is not just being forgiven and having the slate wiped clean. It is not only 'just-as-if-I've-never-sinned', but it is also not 'just-as-if-I-had-lived-a-perfect-life'. Actually, its 'just-as-if-I-was-Jesus'.

Among other things, this means that justification is not a necessary step to being adopted as sons. In fact, I may be as bold to say that justification = adoption.

Jesus was justified by God in his resurrection from the dead (Rom 4:25; 1 Tim 3:16). The Jews, and God the Father through them, declared him a sinner. God the Father by the Spirit then raised him from the dead, overturning their verdict and declaring him righteous (Acts 2:3-24).

But in the covenantal context righteousness is not just doing good according to the natural law (although it is not less than that), it is being the people God called Israel to be - and God called Israel to be his son (Ex 4:22; Rom 9:4). Sadly, instead they acted like sons of Satan and crucified the one who not only called God Father, but by his life showed himself to be God's only Son. So, when God the Father raised Jesus from the dead he declared him to be the Son of God in power (Rom 1:4).

If we are united in Christ by Baptism in faith then that same declaration of God the Father over Jesus as he came out of his water-Baptism 'grave' and his blood-Baptism grave is declared over us as well (Matt 3:17). We are sons in whom the Father is well pleased!

So, don't downplay justification, or teach it reductionistically, but celebrate it in all it's riches!

Serpent crushing

"I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
hhe shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15)

Ed Clowney just taught me that Satan's quotation of Psalm 91:11-12 when tempting Jesus is significant in a surprising way. It is significant not just because he was quoting Scripture, and quoting Scripture in a Christocentric way that found Christ in David's psalm, but also for the context of the verses.

Like so many of us Satan knew when to stop the quote when it got to the bit that made him uncomfortable. However, for Jesus knowing what came next must have been a great encouragement to resist Satan's temptation because if he was the Messiah of verses 11-12 he was also the Messiah for whom it was promised:

"You will tread on the lion and the adder;
the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot." (v.13)

The good news for us is that although all the promises find their "yes" in Jesus, he does not cling onto what is his but shares this birth-right to those he is not ashamed to call his brothers. For this reason, contrary to what you may expect, the only direct references to treading on serpents in the NT (correct me if I'm wrong) are about Christians rather than Christ!

"I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you." (Luke 10:19)

"The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." (Romans 16:20a)

Because Jesus defeated Satan in his temptation, when Israel and Adam had both failed to, we can share in his victory no matter how tempting the sin or powerful the enemy.

All sin

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us (2 Cor 5:21)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Gal 3:13)

Sometimes a person is so associated with something that we stop using an adjective and use the substative. A body builder can, at a certain point, cease "having muscles" and we call him "all muscle." Christ becomes so exclusively associated with sin that it loses any sense for anyone else, and we say of him not only that he is a sinner, but the Sinner.

(p. 108, Steven Paulson, Lutheran Theology)

Wow!

A thief in the night

Less than an hour after I read Dave Bish's post saying that Jesus gives and doesn't take, I read this:

Christ is determined not to stop until he has taken everything of yours. He comes as a thief in the night, and thieves not only surprise us with their untimely arrival, but actually rob us of our possessions. Jesus robs us of our best stuff - our righteous deeds by the law, our good hopes that things will work out (with a little grace), and the belief that God will find us pleasing on our own account - but he also robs us of our worst...Jesus exchanges his priceless worth for our filth.

(p. 106, Steven Paulson, Lutheran Theology)

It reminds me of the legend of someone walking up to Luther and saying, "do you really mean that I have nothing whatsoever to contribute to my salvation?" And Luther supposedly answering, "I'm very sorry if I have given that impression. There's lots you can contribute. Your greed, your lust, your anger...."

It is shocking that Christ is an unusual king who gives lavishly of all that he has, but only after he has become a servant and taken our place and received our due. The good news and the offense are so tied together.

[Incidentally, when I read the Paulson quote I did wonder whether he was using the expression 'thief in the night' out of its biblical context, but when you look at 1 Thessalonians 5 the day of the Lord that comes like a thief does bring destruction and rob everyone of everything. But with the armour that belongs to God, which he gives us, we will come through the destruction to life and salvation with him.]

God is dead

Interesting factoid of the day... Hegel popularised the phrase "God is dead", but probably picked it up from the second verse of this hymn, which in the original German says "God himself is dead". Nietzche then took it from Hegel. It's a suitably bleak Good Friday hymn that was very popular in Germany.

1. O darkest woe!
Ye tears, forth flow!
Has earth so sad a wonder?
God the Father's only Son
Now is buried yonder.

2. O sorrow dread!
God's Son is dead!
But by His expiation
Of our guilt upon the cross
Gained for us salvation.

3. O sinful man!
It was the ban
Of death on thee that brought Him
Down to suffer for thy sins
And such woe hath wrought Him.

4. Lo, stained with blood,
The Lamb of God,
The Bridegroom, lies before thee,
Pouring out His life that He
May life restore thee.

5. O Ground of faith,
Laid low in death.
Sweet lips. now silent sleeping!
Surely all that live must mourn
Here with bitter weeping.

6. Oh. blest shall be
Eternally
Who oft in faith will ponder
Why the glorious Prince of Life
Should be buried yonder.

7. O Jesus blest,
My Help and Rest
With tears I now entreat Thee:
Make me love Thee to the last,
Till in heaven I greet Thee!

Unknown, 1628, Stanza 1
Author: Johann Rist, 1641, ab, Stanzas 2-7
Translated by: Catherine Winkworth, 1863, alt.

Justifying Job

Job, is one of many Biblical books that I struggle to understand. But here is one take on it you don't often hear... it's a book about justification!

• The opening scene: the great accuser (trans. Satan) appears before God. God justifies his servant Job, declaring him righteous before Satan, but Satan declares God's verdict to be false (not for the first, or last time). Satan de-justifies God.
• The dialogue between the 3 friends and Job: The friends take on Satan's accusing role and reason like this:
  • God is just + Job is suffering => Job is unjust
  Job works with similar logic, but to his credit only toys with the conclusion and doesn't commit to it:
  • I am just + I am suffering => God is unjust
• Elihu: Elihu is a bit difficult to pin down. He recognises that Job is trying to justify himself by de-justifying God. He justifies God himself, but he doesn't justify Job. He anticipates God's speeches, but he only has some light to shed on Job's confusing darkness.
• God's speeches: God has two points in his two speeches:
  1. Give up on your logic-games. Job is just and I am just. How those are both true you will never be able to fathom by reason... so give up the quest.
  2. I control the accuser who brings suffering, so there is hope in me as the only one who can tame the leviathan of Satan.
• The epilogue: Job repents, God justifies Job before his friends and the whole world. He declares him righteous and justly gives the blessings of wealth and health which belong to the righteous.

I've blogged about this a little before, so I'll be bold and quote myself saying it quite well!

Elihu was angry with Job because he was 'justifying himself rather than God' (32:2) and YHWH isn't too happy about that either (40:8). But actually Elihu admits that he wants to justify Job (33:32) and YHWH does so in the end too (42:7). Job is justified through YHWH's own justification. Only when YHWH is allowed to be just in a way above human comprehension, can we too be justified.

The power of love

Some half-baked musings...

Some people argue that saying the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son depersonalises the Spirit. Other people argue that saying the Glory of God is the Son personalises God's glory. I don't think you can have it both ways, although I think there is truth to both. It depends whether the controlling definition of 'love' or 'glory' comes from the Triune God revealed in the Christ of the Scriptures. If it is not then the Father, Son and Holy Spirit will be all be depersonalised, but if not then personality will overflow into those terms and out into our lives. Personally I'm all for saying the Spirit is the love of God as Augustine did, arguing from 1 John 4:7-16 and Romans 5:5.

Having said that, in the Bible the Spirit is more closely linked with strength and power than anything else. In which case we should not pit power against love, but find how actually true divine power is loving, and true divine love is powerful.

If there is a more common biblical association with the Spirit than power it must be life. Life is marked by love and power. Desires and actions can be disordered or wrongly directed, but as long as we live we are desiring and acting creatures.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results

Most financial products come with the warning:

past performance is no guarantee of future results

House prices may have gone up the last 5 years, but that doesn't mean they will this year. From mere facts, we can make educated guesses about the future, but there is always at least an undercurrent of fear because of the uncertainty.

This is what life is like without a preacher, and was the disadvantage suffered by the Gentiles until the missionaries came (Romans 3:1)...

Jews have a preacher, many preachers in fact, and so they have been given God's words. The Gentiles had none, until Paul - Apostle - and thus before the preacher arrived they were reduced to investigating a fallen creation for clues as to who their hidden God was (Paul found them in Athens worshipping a statue that said, "To the unknown God"). Usually God is known by his mighty acts of the past so that even the Gentiles could learn something of God this way. The words that gave Jews an advantage in life were promises by which God could be known in terms of the future...When one is able to trust God by means of a word one speaks very differently to him - in the way husband and wife speak to one another as opposed to the way an advertisement addresses an unknown client.

(pp.54-55, Steven Paulson, Lutheran Theology)

Sadly, many unreached peoples are still in the same situation. Trembling at the sound of a falling leaf (as both Calvin and Luther said).

The person AND work of Christ

Some of us talk a lot about the Gospel and criticise legalism. We rejoice a lot in what God has done in the cross of Christ, but less in Christ himself. The Gospel, or perhaps more commonly 'grace' is abstracted and made into a principle or scheme. We are not very good at saying what we are saved to, or who we are reconciled to. We are good at talking about redemption, but not revelation. We should rejoice more in the person of Christ, not just because of what he has done.

Some of us talk a lot about Jesus and criticise monster-God alternatives. We rejoice a lot in who God is, but are remarkably uninterested in what he has done. Jesus becomes a cipher or an idealised God-as-I'd-like-him and not a real person who acts and interacts with us in our fallen state. We are are not very good at saying that we are saved or reconciled and God is being offered as a nice option on the menu we can freely choose. We are good at talking about revelation, but not redemption. We should rejoice more in the work of Christ, not just because it shows us who he is.

I wish I could say that better than I have... I say 'we' in the post because I am always overbalancing one way or another, but lets be people who rejoice in the person and work of Christ (which, incidentally, saves us from both the power and the penalty of sin)

Christian notes on the beginning of Samuel

Hannah's prayer (1 Samuel 2:1-10) begins with her heart exulting and her horn exalting! It ends with YHWH exalting his anointed king.

This is striking because as yet there is no king of Israel, only judges. This is compounded by verse 10 which says that YHWH himself will judge, not just Israel, but the earth.

It is also striking because it implies that Hannah has united her exaltation with the exaltation of the Messiah. Hannah sees that she will be exalted in the Messiah's exaltation. Christ's resurrection and glorification will be her resurrection and glorification. This is a gift she could only grasp by faith!

Union with Christ in his death and resurrection comes out in the middle of the prayer. The middle is marked by great reversals, the greatest of which is that "The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up." God will bring the rich to poverty and the poor to prosperity, the childless will give birth, the hungry will eat, etc.

Standing at the beginning of the book of Samuel we see this movement of death to new life in all the messianic shadows in the book:

1. The judges: Eli dies and Samuel is the new and better judge.
2. The priests: Eli dies and all his line is gradually wiped out (only completed in 1 Kings 1-2), and Samuel and then ultimately Zadok are the new and better priests.
3. The kings: Saul dies and David is the new and better king.

Luke picks up a lot of Samuel's messianic shadows.

It is often noted that Mary, who like Hannah has no possibility of having a child humanly speaking, sings a Hannah-like song in the Magnificat. She too rejoices in the Lord and in the great reversals he will bring about. Zechariah also sees God raising up a horn of salvation (Luke 1:69). In fact, Zechariah can be seen to perform a role similar to that of Eli. Eli is a flawed priest who does recognise what God is doing with Samuel and accepts the judgement on his line. Zechariah is also flawed but sees what God is doing in Christ.

Simeon prophesies that Jesus will be the cause of the "falling and rising of many in Israel" just as Samuel is. What neither he, nor Mary or Zechariah mention when they mention the great reversals is that Jesus will be the cause of these things by both happening in him. He will fall and rise again. All those apart from him will fall in their condemnation of him. All those united to him will fall into the grave too, but rise again by the power of the Father's Spirit.

Finally, just to bolt on the end. It is mentioned a number of times that Samuel grows up (1 Samuel 2:21; 3:19) and the same is said of Jesus in Luke (1:80; 2:52). Another indication that Luke had Samuel on the mind....

Speak Jesus

Not all Christian jargon is good, but today I heard about 'speaking Jesus', which I think is great!

But perhaps you think it is just bad grammar. After all, how can you 'speak Jesus'? You can understand how to speak 'about Jesus', or 'to Jesus', but not simply 'speak Jesus'.

Jack Kilcrease has recently commented on postmodernism. He says it could be described as 'provisionalism' because it teaches that all representation of reality is provisional because it is not the thing it represents. So, the sign (e.g. the word 'tree') can never wholly convey the thing signified (e.g. the tree itself). However, Lutherans teach that by the promise of God the thing signified could be 'in, with and under' the sign. That is not the case with everything, but if God promises then he will perform the miracle.

The language of 'in, with and under' comes from the teaching that Christ is really present in the Lord's Supper. But you could also say the same about Baptism, and the words of absolution.

The same thing could then be applied to the Bible. It is not just about Jesus, but Jesus is really present when it is read. Similarly, when I speak faithfully about Jesus he is there with us. That's how I understand Matthew 18; Jesus is present when two are three are gathered because, and only because, of the words spoken. In this sense the Bible doesn't simply contain the Word of God in parts, but is the Word of God.

This can also be applied to the Church. Christ is 'in, with and under' the Church, so that it really is the Body of Christ and when you persecute the Church you persecute Christ (Acts 26:14).

This is all achieved by the Father sending the Spirit to create a mystical union.

I don't claim to understand Barth (perhaps Dan B could help me out), but I've always been struck by hearing that he taught that "God is his revelation", so there is no God other than the God who is Jesus Christ. Mike Reeves at NWA showed from Ezekiel and elsewhere that "God is his glory", or more specifically God the Father's glory has the name Jesus Christ. It is a bit mind-bending, and I think the language of 'in, with and under' (which, probably not coincidentally, are the words Paul uses for our union with Christ) are more helpful because the identification is not strict (otherwise Barth would be a Christomonist and I would believe that the Christ is the worldwide Church).

Does that make sense to people?

It could probably do with a lot more meditation and definitely a better written post than I have time for today, but I think I may adopt that lovely bit of Christian jargon: 'Speak Jesus to people'.

Why blogging is light

The reason my blogging is limited and pretty low-grade at the moment is that I've just moved cities and started a new and challenging job (Trainee Solicitor).

Time will tell whether blogging can continue in a meaningful way. I'm thankful for my new job but at the same time I found the following quotation from Luther, on the Shepherds outside Bethlehem, encouraging today:

Next to faith this is the highest art — to be content with the calling in which God has placed you. I have not learned it yet.

It's good to know you're not alone.

HT Steve

Something to spark some thoughts

"I think people tend not to believe in God until they need him." (David Zahl)

"God won't be your only hope, until he is your only hope." (Jared Wilson)

...Is that true? Is it true wholly or partly? What are the implications for our dealing with suffering? What are the implications for our preaching? What are the implications for seeking to grow as Christians?

They come from these two videos:

On the videos, one of my most profound reflections is that David Zahl looks scarily like my Uncle Stuart. I also wondered whether Doug Sweeney really got what Jared Wilson was saying.

Job's good comforters

We often focus on Job's miserable comforters, but right at the end of the book we see some exemplary comforters:

"Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold." (Job 42:11)

Job's relatives do the following:

• They are physically present. Notably this is in the important act of eating together with him.
• They show him sympathy (better translation from my limited knowledge: "they mourn expressively")
• They comfort him, presumably particularly with words
• They help him practically with money.

A few random thoughts on Job

• Job was "blameless and upright". Time and again, I hear evangelicals say, "we know Job can't be perfect, but nevertheless he was a faithful person". Seems a bit like lowering-the-bar theology to me. Why can't we say that he really was blameless and upright because Christ's blamelessness and uprightness was credited to him?
• Job is so conscientious that he is concerned that his sons have "cursed God in their hearts". Satan's objective is to get Job to curse God to his face (1:11; 2:5). Job's wife encourages him to do just that (2:9). Recalls the Fall, although Job doesn't sin. Also speaking truly about God seems to be a major theme, as God picks that up in 42:7-8.
• Job does not suffer despite being righteous, but because he is righteous.
• Job's faith in the early chapters of the book is often held up as a model. Should it be? He does fear God, and doesn't grasp onto false rights to good things from God, but there is no indication that he has hope or trust in God as his Father. Rather than lauding the initial reactions of Job, I think we should see Job's faith as only partial in the famous "the Lord gives and the Lord takes away". He concludes his final speech by saying, "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." Before he knew something of God, but through his suffering and God's revelation he is brought to a much deeper and richer knowledge of God as the one who is in control but also has good purposes. The vision of God Job has at the end is the vision we should focus on.
• In the early chapters Satan is portrayed as the one bringing the suffering upon Job, with God only as the one permitting it. However both Job and the narrator attribute the suffering to God and never to Satan. Although that must bring certain problems for the believer, it is tremendously important. If suffering is purely by chance, fate or a wholly malevolent being then we can't ask for it to stop. If it is our Father who disciplines us because he loves us we can ask him to stop when the discipline is too much and have a certain hope he will answer.

My top 10 songs

For what it's worth, here are my top 10 (in no particular order):

• My Song is Love Unknown (Crossman)
• Before the Throne Above (Bancroft, tune by Cook)
• In Christ Alone (Townend/Getty)
• How Deep the Father's Love (Townend)
• And can it be that I should gain (Wesley)
• When I Survey the Wondrous Cross (Watts)
• I cannot tell why He whom angels worship (Fullerton)
• When I was lost you came and rescued me (Simmonds)
• The Look (Newton, adapted by Kauflin)
• It is Finished (Wesley, Praise version I think)

What are your favourites?

The Bible's love story

The Bible is an unusual love story.

The Father chooses Israel to be a bride for his Son. His Son marries Israel at Sinai but she never loved him and never does. Time and again the Son tries to win the heart of his wife only to see her run after other men.

Sometimes he leaves her to it, hoping she will see through the false promises of those who seduce her. Sometimes he disciplines her to try and drive home the horror of what she is doing, but he doesn't kill her because he really loves her (compared with the cultural norm a great mercy). Sometimes he declares his love of her and sometimes he simply tells her to love him. Often he just showers her with gifts to try and win her, even though it makes him look like a cuckold to the nations.

However, as perhaps many of us know from experiences of unrequited love, you cannot persuade someone to love you. You can try all sorts but love isn't something that you can create in another person's heart just as you can't create it in your own. It is called 'falling in love' because it is not something that happens in a planned way.

The husband knows the punishment for adultery is death. Jesus sees his wife commit adultery again and again and knows that the patience of God cannot continue forever. But God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit love Jesus' wife so much that they plan a way to save the woman. The Son will identify with her so completely as one flesh that he will take her place and die for her sins. In fact the wife who has for years acted like she wanted her husband dead, does the murder.

That would be a tragic love story if it ended there, but praise God it doesn't.

The Father raises the Son, but the widow is an unchanged woman. She needs to be born again - to be given a heart transplant where her old heart is killed and she is given a new one. There is only one person who has made that journey from death to life before and in the same way as he identified with her to the uttermost in dying her death, she is indentified with him by dying with him and so being raised with him. In baptism recieved from God by faith this happens - she is made anew with a heart which beats for him and she waits eagerly for the future day when she will marry him to live with him for eternity.

With thanks to Tim Salaska

Progressive revelation in Hebrews

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son

Hebrews begins with one of the clearest statements of progressive revelation in the Bible. But by 1:6 the author is quoting from the Song of Moses where the God who saved Israel out of Egypt is identified with the Son (cf. Jude 1:5).

By 2:2-3 the author is arguing, from the lesser to the greater, that if under the old covenant the punishment was severe how much more careful should we be to enter the rest. But then in 4:2 he says that "good news came to us just as to them", so they already had the good news and were looking forward to just the rest that we are promised.

Lots to think about.

Where's Christ in the OT?

In a similar vein to my last post, do you ever read a passage and wonder where Christ is in the passage?

One thing I've found helpful is to remember that all the Bible is about communication/action from God to humans. Therefore there are three elements to it:

1. The speaker/actor: God
2. The message/the means of action
3. The hearer/the acted upon (both good and bad guys)

Because Christ is God, the message of the Bible, and the representative man/Israel etc then you can find Christ in each of these elements.

For example in Wisdom you can find Jesus as:

1. The ultimate wise man we should listen to
2. The content of wisdom we should learn
3. The person who obediently listens to his wise Father and receives all the blessings that come from wisdom and/or the person who receives all the curses of being a fool (in our place)

Or, for another example, in the story of Noah he is:

1. The God who rescues his chosen people from the coming wrath
2. The ark in whom we are saved from death
3. The person who is brought through the flood (death) to become the firstborn of a new people and/or the person who is drowned in the wrath of God's judgment against sin (in our place)

Or in prophecy he is:

1. The person who appeared to the prophets and gave them the words to say
2. The content of the prophecy
3. the people who will receive the promise (land, life etc) and/or the people who will be rejected and destroyed (in our place)

Bible study block

Do you ever get a block when preparing a Bible study, or trying to hear God in your personal Bible reading?

I do.

One thing I've found helpful to kick start constructive reflection (other than prayer!) is to ask three questions (nicked from someone else):

1. What does this passage say about God?
2. What does this passage say about humans?
3. What comes out of this? (in terms of God's response/our response)