Quotable: Calvin on Justification

faith without works justifies, although this needs prudence and a sound interpretation; for this proposition, that faith without works justifies is true and yet false, according to the different senses which it bears. The proposition, that faith without works justifies by itself, is false, because faith without works is void. But if the clause "without works" is joined with the word “justifies,” the proposition will be true, since faith cannot justify when it is without works, because it is dead, and a mere fiction. He who is born of God is just, as John says. (1Jo 5:18.) Thus faith can be no more separated from works than the sun from his heat yet faith justifies without works, because works form no reason for our justification; but faith alone reconciles us to God, and causes him to love us, not in ourselves, but in his only begotten Son.

(Commentary on Ezekiel 18:14-17)

Had he only said, that Christ by justifying us becomes ours by an essential union, and that he is our head not only in so far as he is man, but that as the essence of the divine nature is diffused into us, he might indulge his dreams with less harm, and, perhaps, it were less necessary to contest the matter with him; but since this principle is like a cuttle-fish, which, by the ejection of dark and inky blood, conceals its many tails,—But as the principle which he adopts is like a cuttlefish, which, casting out its blood, which is black as ink, troubles the water all around, to hide a great multitude of tails. if we would not knowingly and willingly allow ourselves to be robbed of that righteousness which alone gives us full assurance of our salvation, we must strenuously resist. For, in the whole of this discussion, the noun righteousness and the verb to justify, are extended by Osiander to two parts; to be justified being not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made just; and righteousness being not a free imputation, but the holiness and integrity which the divine essence dwelling in us inspires. And he vehemently asserts (see sec. 8) that Christ is himself our righteousness, not in so far as he, by expiating sins, appeased the Father, but because he is the eternal God and life. To prove the first point—viz. that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other. In the confusion of a twofold grace, which Osiander obtrudes upon us, there is a similar absurdity. Because those whom God freely regards as righteous, he in fact renews to the cultivation of righteousness, Osiander confounds that free acceptance with this gift of regeneration, and contends that they are one and the same. But Scriptures while combining both, classes them separately, that it may the better display the manifold grace of God. Nor is Paul’s statement superfluous, that Christ is made unto us "righteousness and sanctification," (1 Cor. 1:30). And whenever he argues from the salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God and the grace of Christ, that we are called to purity and holiness, he plainly intimates, that to be justified is something else than to be made new creatures. Osiander on coming to Scripture corrupts every passage which he quotes. Thus when Paul says, "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," he expounds justifying as making just. With the same rashness he perverts the whole of the fourth chapter to the Romans. He hesitates not to give a similar gloss to the passage which I lately quoted, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.” Here it is plain that guilt and acquittal simply are considered, and that the Apostle’s meaning depends on the antithesis. Therefore his futility is detected both in his argument and his quotations for support from Scripture. He is not a whit sounder in discussing the term righteousness, when it is said, that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness after he had embraced Christ (who is the righteousness of Gad and God himself) and was distinguished by excellent virtues. Hence it appears that two things which are perfect are viciously converted by him into one which is corrupt. For the righteousness which is there mentioned pertains not to the whole course of life; or rather, the Spirit testifies, that though Abraham greatly excelled in virtue, and by long perseverance in it had made so much progress, the only way in which he pleased God was by receiving the grace which was offered by the promise, in faith. From this it follows, that, as Paul justly maintains, there is no room for works in justification.

(Institutes 3.11.6)

Counting down

Most people are currently counting down to Christmas at the moment. I'm counting down to the New Year when I've got to start studying law again. Soon I'll be unable to read as much as I'm managing at the moment. My current wish list of things to read, on the doctrine of justification alone, include:

• The Way of Salvation: The role of Christian Obedience in Justification by Paul A. Rainbow
• Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin
• "Reflections on Salvation and Justification in the New Testament" by D.A. Carson JETS 40/4 (December 1997) 581-608.
• Justification: The Reformers and Recent New Testament Scholarship" by Gerald Bray Churchman 109/2 1995
• "'The Gift of Salvation': Its Failure to Address the Crux of Justification" by Mark A. Seifrid JETS 42/4 (December 1999) 679-688
• Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 by Scott J. Hafemann
• Paul and the Jews by Andrew Das

It's unlikely I'll get very far! And then there's all the more important things I have to be doing.... the trouble is the more you read the more you want to read.

Church history in 3 steps

According to Jim 'shine on you crazy diamond' Jordan you can look at the development of church history (or at least it's theology) like this:

• Step 1: Develop the theology of the Trinity (The Early Church).
• Step 2: Once you have done step 1 you now have the ability to develop the theology of the atonement (The Middle Ages).
• Step 3: Once you have done step 2 you now have the ability to develop the theology of how the atonement can be appropriated (Post-Reformation).

No doubt this is horribly reductionistic. However, my extremely limited forays into church history seem at least to suggest there is some truth in it. The early church especially seem to have an amazingly undeveloped doctrine of justification. Anyway, I don't have time to reflect on this further, although I am increasingly convinced of some kind of developmental view of church history (see my post on Schaff). It only seems sad that at present in Europe and North America past developments in understanding of the bible's teaching on atonement and justification are being undermined; not so much by questioning, which must always continue, but by failing to seriously consider the writings of those who thought much more deeply about such things than some at present. I wonder what people are thinking about in the rest of the Christian church, perhaps that will be where new developments will come.

Quotable: Seifrid on the Law's Spirit Deficit

Hafemann [and Jimmy Dunn] treat [2 Cor 3] as a discussion of the ineffectual nature of the law apart from the Spirit - as if Paul anywhere speaks of an effectual law through the Spirit!

(p. 112, Christ Our Righteousness, IVP)

Using the law lawfully

Perhaps there would be more light and less heat in the argument if Pauline scholars paid more attention to the Pastorals. 1 Timothy 1:8ff is something on which I haven't read much discussion:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

However we still have a choice over interpretations for what is a 'lawful' use of the law:

1. You use the law lawfully if you use it to condemn non-Christians.
2. You use the law lawfully if you realise that you the Christian are ungodly and sinners.

The argument for the first is that Paul does not seem to talk of Christians as sinners (they have died to that identity), and yet it is still the ungodly that are justified (Rom 4:5) so maybe the second interpretation is best... or perhaps there is a third way!

All this thinking is hard work. An Peter Dray has now gone and said that I'm 'drawing together and analyising a large amount of helpful scholarship'. Now I feel under pressure!

Ramblings on the Law as both good and bad

How can 'the law [be] holy, and the commandment [be] holy and righteous and good' (Rom 7:12) when it is 'not of faith' (Gal 3:12)?

Two answers come to the top of my head.

1. The law is good but partial and outdated in the light of our faith. This answer recognises that 'faith' is not abstract but must be faith in someone, namely Christ who had not been revealed in the law.
2. The law was right in theory when it offered life through obedience, but it was a hypothetical promise as no one could meet its holy standard. Despite the pedigree of this answer to the question, I think it is flawed in many, many ways (although it still has some truth to it.

A third way in which you can get round the seemingly conflicting statements in Paul is to argue that Paul when criticising the Law is actually attacking a perversion of the Law and not the Law rightly understood. This makes sense of many Pauline passages and helps in embracing all of God's word wholeheartedly. However, as Seifrid taught me, it is difficult to square this perspective with the fact that Paul always seems to be criticising the law itself, and not some perversion of it.

However, having thought about that I tried to think of other instances where the bible criticises something and yet actually holds it to be good. The most obvious example to me is Kingship. In Judges (except in the final section) and Samuel it is portrayed as a bad thing, with no indication that it may be good. Abimelech is surely a clear example of why raising up a king is bad (Judg 9), and Saul is an even clearer example despite being anointed by God. And yet despite the first half of Judges and Samuel in the second parts of the two books kingship is shown as a positive and God-ordained institution. And yet like Paul with the Law, when the bible is criticising kingship it seems for all the world that it is criticising kingship itself, and not a perversion of it.

Well my thoughts are not fully formed but I think there is something to be said for the 'perversion of the law' argument but care is probably required in using it.

The many problems with the Mosaic Law

Here are some more notes on the bible (which along with quotes is all I really do on this blog). As usual they are works in progress and not fully formed thoughts.

1. It was temporary "for when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." (Heb 7:12; cf. Gal 3:23f)
2. It doesn't justify "for if righteousness [/justification] were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." (Gal 2:21) indeed "it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law" (Gal 3:11). Note I say that it 'doesn't' justify and not that it 'didn't'. I think it is harder to show that it 'didn't' justify but there are passages which imply that it never did.
3. It didn't sanctify for "the law, weakened by the flesh, could not [...] please God" (Rom 8:3-8; cf. Jer 31 and 2 Cor 3 where the problem with the Mosaic law was that it was 'of the letter'/'the written code' and wasn't written on people's hearts by the Spirit). Note I am more confident to say that it 'didn't' here.
4. It was only a partial revelation for "in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (Heb 1:2; cf John 1 and the rest of Hebrews)
5. It was cursed due to Israel's disobedience this is more controversial and I am struggling to think of a passage to support it. However, I do think there is some mileage in remembering that the law belonged to the Jews, and that the Jews were under a curse (in exile) which Christ took upon himself. Therefore, the law itself had been in some way cursed too, so that to obey it is to identify with a cursed nation rather than the cursed Son of God who unlike the nation was/is able fully 'absorb' that curse on our behalf.

More thoughts to come... Please add your own.

The many purposes of the Mosaic Law

With a little help from Bruce Longenecker (The Triumph of Abraham's God) these are some hastily typed thoughts. Obviously there is a certain amount of overlap but I suspect not all are equally important or compatible.

1. To increase transgression.
• Two alternative ways it could do this, either by providing a legal basis for the classification of sin as transgression (Rom 5:20), or by actually increasing sin (Rom 7)
2. To reveal human sinfulness.
• There seem to be two (not mutually exclusive) ways in could do this, firstly by clearly showing the demands of God and showing humanity's inability to meet those demands, and secondly by illustrating human sinfulness in the ceremonial aspects of the law.
3. To restrain sinful desires (cf. Matt 19).
4. To condemn human sinfulness (try any of the OT prophets or 2 Cor 3:9).
5. To provide shadows of the reality found in Christ (Hebrews).
6. To make known what God is like (Heb 1).
7. To enable God to draw near to a people despite their sin and his holiness
• Consider how the levels of sacrifice and other rituals increased the nearer you came to God, and it was not just ceremonial but the demands of personal moral holiness were also greater the nearer you came to God (which links in with the higher standards Israel was held to compared to the nations).

Meanwhile, where as I stumble along in these matters Peter Dray is being much more clear and helpful on the place of the law on his blog if you care to take a look.

If anyone else does read this blog then please comment and help me out here. Thanks.

I'm off here for a week

The Lake District in November... I'm sure it will be beautiful so long as it doesn't rain too much.

Protestant Scholasticism or Reformed Orthodoxy

This may not interest many, but there is a long-running debate about how we should regard seventeenth century Protestant theology. Martin Downes quotes Richard Gaffin challenging the prevailing negative assessment in a recent post. I have no opinion on the matter, not knowing enough to comment, but thought I would just note down a quotation from Philip Schaff which shows what this negative assessment actually looks like and also shows that it the attitude has been around for a while.

The seventeenth century is the period of Protestant scholasticism. It furnishes a parallel to the Catholic scholasticism of the Middle Ages, but is much richer in biblical learning. Its exegesis bears the same relation to the exegesis of the Reformers (henceforward revered as protestant Fathers) as the medieval exegesis to the patristic. It has the prevailing character of reproduction, compilation, and confessional contraction. It was based on a mechanical theory of verbal inspiration or dictation, which was most minutely formulated, and acted as a check upon independent research. An infallible Book was set over against an infallible Church. The Protestant Confessions of Faith acquired the authority of Catholic tradition. Exegesis was controlled by dogmatic systems and made subservient to polemic confessionalism. The Bible was used as a repository of proof-texts, without discrimination between the Old and New Testaments, and between the different books. A vast amount of patient, pedantic, antiquarian learning was accumulated.

(p.215f, Theological Propaedeutic)

One thing I do wonder a little is whether a difference between the Puritan theology of Britain and the continental Protestant theologians.

Seperation from God - judgment or blessing?

Provocative title huh?

It is common Evangelical parlance to refer to hell, and judgment in particular as being separation from God. I'm not so sure that this is a biblical idea though.

It seems to me that throughout the bible that being close to God is a blessing but also a potential source of curse. Distance and barriers between the presence of God is a way of protecting those distanced from the white-hot holiness of God - although the aim should always to come nearer without becoming toast.

In a post sometime ago I talked about how the Israelite camp in the wilderness was organised so that the Tabernacle was encircled by Levites "so that there may be no wrath on the congregation of the people of Israel". At the foot of Sinai the people of Israel are clearly afraid of coming close to God's presence in Sinai and YHWH agreed they should be careful saying "Take care not to go up into the mountain or touch the edge of it". Nadab and Abihu weren't alone in learning that being close to God was a dangerous thing (Lev 10) throughout the Bible when God comes close death comes as well as blessing because he cannot be close to sin. This is particularly clear in the story in Samuel about the capture of the Ark which brought both judgment and blessing on those who came near it. Throughout the Bible people are astonished to see God and yet live (cf. Genesis 32:30; Deuteronomy 5:24; Judges 6:22; Judges 13:22; Exodus 33:20; Isaiah 6:5).

In the OT cult the closer you got to God the greater the sacrifice needed to cleanse you, and I think Jim Jordan (who has made this clearer for me) is right that the garments of the priests consist of lots of layers and include a 'breastplate' as further 'protection' from the results of sinful man coming close to the Holy God.

Perhaps then even the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden, and Cain's exile from the presence of God can be seen as ways of postponing the judgment of immediate death.

Of course "a day in [God's] courts is better than a thousand elsewhere. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness." but the only way in which you can enter God's courts with confidence is by faith - by putting on breastplate of (Christ's) righteousness, and clothing ourselves with our Saviour who is the only one with the right to be there. When you are invited to God's feast that is an amazing blessing but not if you have not come dressed right (Matt 22)

I think this helps us understand the role of the law (another post perhaps) and the role of Israel in heaping up transgressions to be placed on Christ for the whole world. I think it helps us to consider baptism, preaching of the bible etc - they are all intrinsically good and blessings, and yet for some they will be a curse. It is also useful apologetically. Doug Pagitt may appear to be a very confused person in his recent interview but he may be right in one respect, at the resurrection we will all end up in one place, before the throne of God, but for some (frighteningly) God will be a consuming fire and for others (by God's grace alone) will bask in the the Glory of God will be light and warmth (Rev 21).

That's a rubbish post on a awesome subject, but at least I managed to get a few things down. Please forgive the rough edges, I'm still thinking this through and I am aware that I may be misusing Eph 6 and Matt 22 (more thinking required) and really have barely hinted at the beauty of holiness. But if anyone has any thoughts please comment but be gentle.

Luther's other theses

I've just been listening to some talks by Carl Trueman on Luther. One really powerful bit was where Trueman expounds some of the 40 theses that Luther presented at the Hieldberg Disputation in 1518. These two particularly struck me.

19 That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened.

20 He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

You could spend a lifetime thinking about those. But just to give you a start try thinking about power, love, and hate with those statements in mind.

The Principle of Protestantism

I've just finished The Principle of Protestantism by Philip Schaff. It's a fascinating little book. It was delivered as an inauguration address in German, when Schaff was just 25 and newly emigrated to America from Germany to take up a post in a new seminary with just one other member of the teaching staff. Schaff would become one of the most important Church Historians of the 19th century, and freshly landed in America he had plenty to say for himself.

Most striking to me were three (interconnected) things that run throughout the book:

1. An incredibly positive evaluation of other church traditions then and in the past, coupled with a strong belief in the truth of reformed protestantism.
2. The importance of the church uniting, yet a understanding that protestant distinctives not be compromised in any way.
3. That the church is growing and developing in life and doctrine throughout history.

This Hegelian influenced, absolute confidence in progress is astonishing. As Christians we often hear about how the liberal belief in progress has been destroyed by the two world wars of the 20th century, but I have never read it so strongly held. For Schaff "Protestantism is the principle of movement, of progress in the history of the church; progress, not such as may go beyond the Bible and Christianity, but such as consists in an ever-extending knowledge of the Bible itself, and an ever-deepening appropriation of Christianity as the power of a divine life, which is destined to make all things new" (p. 201, emphasis his).

However, Schaff is no naive optimist as 'it must not be forgotten however, in connection with this that there is a corresponding movement also on the part of evil, towards that which is worse, Light and darkness, the wheat and the tares, grow together till their development shall become complete' (p.222).

This is strange to my ears, and I don't know what to make of it.

This principle of progress runs throughout the book and informs all of his observations on the history of the Church. Protestantism he sees not as the rediscovery of the truth held by the church fathers, but as a development of doctrine (he lists justification by faith, and the authority of scripture, as the material and formal principle of the Reformation) against a church which thought it had the truth nailed down, and the infiniteness depths of God with it. He finds the two 'diseases' of the church of his day to be rationalism and sectarianism. And yet he finds God working in both. The scientific method is a wonderful gift to the church to aid its understanding of the bible and the world - and yet rationalism is still a deadly disease to war against. All the different denominations and nationalities (America as melting pot comes through very clearly) have lessons for each other which must not be reduced to common-denominator Christianity for the sake of unity - and yet the division in the church is a horrendous sin.

The trouble is, I just don't know whether I can accept the idea of historical progress which for Schaff is such a fruitful way of understanding God's working in the world. However, I can't think of an argument against it of the top of my head.

PS Incidentally the other fascinating thing about Schaff, which I have found in many 19th century writers is that he is more than willing to make sweeping generalisations about the character of different nations. In the different nations he is happy to see the strengths (which he hopes will be combined in America), but he is clear that he thinks Germany is pretty great. Here is a taster:

the proper home of Protestant theology is Germany, and hence we may say that those who refuse to take account of German theology, set themselves in fact against the progress of Protestantism...We wish not to depreciate in the least the merits acquired in former ties, by the Dutch and the English in particular, in the way of biblical study...The German is always disposed rather to put an undue value on what is foreign, and has long since appropriated the results of these investigations and worked them into the process of his own cultivation. But what is all this beside the gigantic creations of German theology! All its heresies cannot destroy my respect for it...for only an archangel can become a devil. As England and America would not have been able at all to produce so fearful an enemy of Christianity as David Fridrich Strauss, so must they have been much less able to meet him with a proper refutation; and I shudder at times to think of the desolation his writings must occasion, if they should come to be much read-which may God prevent-in this country. (p.202)

You can't help but smile a little.

The heavens declare the glory of God

...any work of art bears the impress of the artist who made it. The music of Beethoven does not sound like the music of Josquin. The Apostle Paul's writing style is not the same as the Apostle John's. We can hear and detect these differences, even if we lack the particular expertise to explain what accounts for them.

But suppose that the only composer who ever lived was Johann Sebastian Bach. There is no music in this world except that of Bach. Whenever we hear music in this world, it sounds like Bach's music. It maybe played well or badly but the fundamental raw material is always Bach, only Bach, nothing but Bach. Now, since there is no other music to compare this music to, would we be able to "hear" Bach's personality in the music? Or would it be easy for us to forget about Bach, and assume that "music simply is"?

The problem with hearing or detecting God's authorship of the world is just like this. There is no other world to compare God’s world to. There is no "music" except God's. It can be "played" well or perversely, but there are no other raw materials at hand. God's personality is fully displayed in the world, but it is easy for us to become deaf to this fact. (p. 21, James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a biblical view of the world)

What a great illustration of the need for new eyes!

Q: Why do none of the NT books recall the events of 70AD?

The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple must have resounded like an earthquake round the Christian churches in 70AD. Even a cursory reading of the NT makes it clear that the status of the Jews and the Jewish religion were huge issues for the NT church. yet, as far as I know, the only possible references to the events of 70AD see it as a future event.

I can only think of three possible answers to this question:

1. Almost all the NT books were written pre-70AD - contrary to what most scholars of all stripes and all ages believe (as far as I am aware from my limited knowledge).
2. It wasn't as big a deal as everyone thinks it was. The NT Christians knew that the temple of Jesus' body had already been torn down and rebuilt. The physical temple was yesterday's news and nobody cared.
3. There are references to the destruction of Jerusalem all through the NT, but I am just too blind and ignorant to see them.

As God is continually reminding me - you can't understand his Word without his Spirit, so I will be praying about these nagging questions I'm putting down. But as I said before, this is partly an appeal for help from those who have more of the Spirit than I do.

Q: Should the Israelites have rejected the Mosiac Law?

A: Errm...well obviously the answer to my nagging question should be 'no'. But when you hear many people talk about 'the law' you can't help feeling that the answer should be 'yes'.

When Moses came down mount Sinai perhaps the Israelites should have responded "You know what Moses, God already has an unconditional covenant with us as children of Abraham. We know that we are accepted on that basis, without circumcision, by faith alone. Frankly Moses, you are selling us down the river with a works-based righteousness that will not lead to life. We'll stick with the unconditional covenant of Abraham and reject your man-made legalism."

You know your understanding of the Mosaic law is wrong when you cannot pin down why that should not have been the Israelites response to the giving of the law.

... I am pretty sure my understanding of the law is wrong!

"But the law is not of faith..."

By the way, this is going to be the start of a mini-series of nagging questions (not doubts) about the Bible. I don't know the answers to any of them so please feel free to help me out.

Why Tim Chester wrote The Busy Christian's Guide to Busyness

A truly brilliant book. As I said on my old blog:

In an age when there are so many Christian books purporting to be relevant to the 21st century, or to the reality of our lives, this is the first book I’ve read that actually delivers ... This is the most beneficial book I have read this year. A perfect mix of big picture Christianity, and day-to-day practicalities... I thank God for this book.

...also my first attempt to post video. Not that complicated really.

A neat little summary of OT sacrifices

I started reading Gerhard Von Rad's seminal OT theology yesterday. I've given up though as it seems so concerned with getting behind the text, rather than listening to it, and I have a load of other books waiting in line. But before I gave up I came across a neat little summary of the nature of OT sacrifices.

• gift
• communion
• atonement

Not profound, but a helpful little framework. I think it only leads to misunderstanding if we overemphasise any one of them.

Article on the Holy Spirit in the OT

• "Were Old Covenant Believers Indwelt by the Holy Spirit?" Themelios 30 (2004), 12-22; by James Hamilton

"The Gospel of John states, 'Unless one is born of water and spirit, he is not able to enter the Kingdom of God' (John 3:5). Later in John we read that the Spirit will not be received until after Jesus is glorified (7:39). If the Spirit is not received until after the cross, could Nicodemus have experienced the new birth from above prior to the cross? Did the old covenant remnant experience the new birth by the Spirit? Were individual members of the old covenant remnant indwelt by the Spirit? This essay seeks to provide an answer to these questions...."

Judgment in the temple

I was reading Jeremiah today. It is probably testament to my ignorance but while I knew that Jesus quoted from Jeremiah when 'cleansing' the temple I never realised that Jeremiah himself performed a very similar action in his day. Presumably then we should use each passage to aid interpretation of the other.

The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: "Stand in the gate of the Lord's house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the Lord, all you men of Judah who enter these gates to worship the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Amend your ways and your deeds, and I will let you dwell in this place. Do not trust in these deceptive words: 'This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.'

"For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own harm, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever.

"Behold, you trust in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, 'We are delivered!'—only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, declares the Lord. Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it because of the evil of my people Israel. And now, because you have done all these things, declares the Lord, and when I spoke to you persistently you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name, and in which you trust, and to the place that I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. And I will cast you out of my sight, as I cast out all your kinsmen, all the offspring of Ephraim.

(Jeremiah 7:1-15)

And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. And he was teaching them and saying to them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers." And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and were seeking a way to destroy him, for they feared him, because all the crowd was astonished at his teaching. And when evening came they went out of the city.

(Mark 11:15-19)

The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me."

So the Jews said to him, "What sign do you show us for doing these things?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"

(John 2:13-20)

What are the similarities and differences between the two passages?

• Similarity: Both came to the temple with a message to proclaim.
• Difference: Jeremiah didn't enter the temple to deliver his message, but Jesus did.
• Similarity: both the Synoptics and Jeremiah use the term 'den of robbers' although it is clear in Jeremiah at least that robbers are representative of the many crimes Israel is committing.
• Simiarity: In both John and Jeremiah the messages mention the temple's destruction.
• Difference: Jeremiah prophecies that God will drive his people out of his presence in the Temple. Jesus actually does it.
• Similarity: outside the passages, but these acts of Jeremiah and Jesus both led to their persecution by the Jews - Jeremiah was locked up, Jesus was killed.

What does this mean to me?

• We shouldn't consider Jesus to be against the traders in the temple only (put cathedral shops out of mind), rather he was judging the entire nation.
• The judgment that God warned the Jews of was actually brought (symbolically - but no less in reality) by Jesus. Prophecy is fulfilled.
• There is hope in both Jeremiah and John. In Jeremiah, if the people change their ways they can remain in God's temple. In John, God's temple will be judged but there is an opportunity to be included in a new and better temple by participating in Jesus' death and resurrection.
• Repent and believe God's prophet. Don't trust that upbringing, works or anything else ensures your favour - trust in the personal God who saves.
• Finally, to dwell in the presence of God is the promise of the Gospel - cherish it!

Even more on Justification

• A gentleman called Mark Garcia has written a very helpful review article of two books with different views on justification. It argues that both make the mistake of assuming that there is one Protestant understanding of justification. It's very well written, and can be read here. Many moons ago I posted some quotes by Geerhardus Vos which seem to back up Mark Garcia's argument.

• John Piper has a book coming out on Tom Wright's theology of Justification and a 30min interview with him on the subject of the book can be accessed on Jacob Paul Breeze's blog. Piper seems to echo Howard Marshall in saying that Wright is correct in what he affirms but wrong in what he denies. I agree with Piper on this, although I had some concerns of my own about Piper's expression of the doctrine of justification. But when it comes down to it I'm with Jacob Paul Breeze...

  if you want to talk about who is "right"...that's fine. But, I eventually want to talk about the larger issue: how do we for the sake of unity and mission to the world, work together when we have different interpretations of Scripture (yet because of Justification by Faith [ironically] we are both full participants in God’s family?

Tertullian's legacy to the Western Church

If you have 74min to spare then I highly recommend this mp3 lecture by Gerald Bray on Tertullian (c.155–230AD).

He was extremely strange in his theology... Stranger than you can possibly imagine. But he was far from irrelevant, and the implications of his theology are still being played out in the church.

I don't often go out of may way to recommend an mp3 - it really is worth a listen.

Influential teachers and the academy

Sad news today is that CFD Moule has died aged 98. He was the best kind of biblical scholar, and thoroughly British.

For some reason on my bus ride home today I was thinking of whether I have been seriously influenced in my understanding of Christianity by any lifelong biblical scholars - like Moule. I'm sure other people think about more interesting stuff on their commute but I started making a list in my head of the most influential writers of my life so far. Here it is (in rough chronological order):

• John Calvin
• Don Carson
• John Piper
• Graeme Goldsworthy
• Mark Seifrid
• Lesslie Newbigin
• Tom Wright
• Tim Chester
• Peter Leithart [perhaps to early to say]
• Jim Jordan [perhaps to early to say]

All of them have taught at an institution at some point in their career, and all but one (Mark Seifrid) have had some kind of pastoral ministry as well. So as I was nearing home I tried to wonder why is it that I have been most influenced by these pastor-theologians (as they may be described in the broadest way). Here is my list of possible reasons:

• They are better at communicating to my level.
• Many of them have lots of mp3s on the internet and I listen to a lot of mp3s.
• Academics spend half their time 'interacting' with other academics and not enough time expounding the bible.
• ... Then it was my stop, and I have no more thoughts at the moment.

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

Swimming

This is a stupid post really. But I just thought I'd post on the great thing that is the The One Year® Bible. Yes it may be a registered trademark but God by his grace has used it to get me into regular daily reading of the bible. There is really nothing like it. If you want to get yourself a bible reading plan for the coming year I'd highly recommend it. I'd also say that take a look at this clever page visualizing loads of the plans out there for people like me who don't feel they have understood anything unless it can be described graphically. But the best thing about The One Year® Bible is that it rearranges the bible into the daily readings. It may seem like the definition of laziness to buy a bible that saves you jumping around the bible for each passage of the day, but in some way it has helped me.

My next plan to get into the bible is to start reading though a few books of the NT with John Calvin and John Chrysostom as company. I hope to do this in the break I have between law courses in the next few weeks. In reading up on John Chrysostom because I don't know much about except what I have picked up through John Calvin, and I found this quote on reading the bible:

"Listen carefully to me, I entreat you…. [P]rocure books that will be medicines for the soul.... At least get a copy of the New Testament, the Apostle's epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers. If you encounter grief, dive into them as into a chest of medicines; take from them comfort for your trouble, whether it be loss, or death, or bereavement over the loss of relations. Don't simply dive into them. Swim in them. Keep them constantly in your mind. The cause of all evils is the failure to know the Scriptures well."

(Homilies on Colossians, Cited in Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 96]

What a great truth that is. If I ever needed reminding of the sovereign mercy of God, and the darkness of my contrary soul, I just need to be pointed to my irregular habits of reading the bible. I so often neglect it, but when God moves in my life to make it a regular thing it is like water to a thirsty soul.

A bit of a random post - but at least I've documented the link to that clever web page and that wonderful quote.

Who was Oscar Cullmann?

I've only read a few books by Oscar Cullmann, and while they are not astounding I think that they are only not because much of what he was about has become mainstream - in conservative evangelicalism at least. Wikipedia describes him so:

Oscar Cullmann (25 February 1902, Strasbourg - 16 January 1999, Chamonix) was a Christian theologian in the Lutheran tradition. He is best known for his work in the ecumenical movement, being in part responsible for the establishment of dialogue between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic traditions. Because of his intense ecumenical work, Cullmann's Basel colleague Karl Barth joked with him that his tombstone would bear the inscription "advisor to three popes."

Within the evangelical tradition he is remembered slightly differently as the author of the (good) cliché that Christ's death and Resurrection can be compared with D-day as the decisive battle in a war that rumbles on although VE-day, when sin and death are completely destroyed, is yet to come. I think this comes closer to the heart of what he was about (not that I have any authority to say so). He says of his important work Christ and Time:

The whole of early Christian thought is based in Heilsgeschichte [salvation history], and everything that is said about death and eternal life stands or falls with a belief in a real occurrence, in real events which took place in time. [...] The purpose of my book Christ and Time was precisely to show that this belongs to the substance, to the essence of the early Christian faith, that it is something not to be surrendered, not to be altered in meaning;

(Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?)