From a lover of love...

PT Forsyth:

I was turned from a Christian to a believer, from a lover of love to an object of grace

(somewhere in p. 281ff of Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind)

Taking sides

In faith, one takes the side of God in his claim against one's self, giving God justice. At the same time, one takes hold of God's gift in Christ, whom he has 'put forward' as an atonement and in whom he has taken the side of the sinner. In Christ and in faith, the justification of God the Creator meets the justification of the godless.

(Mark A. Seifrid, p. 18, 'The "New Perspective on Paul" and Its Problems', Themelios, Issue 25-2

PS. I'm still hoping for book recommendations...

Random Law and Gospel things

1. Hosea

Reading Hosea 1 last night I was painfully aware of my whoring after other gods. That I didn't believe Jesus was the source of all good and went looking for it elsewhere. That word of judgment felt so real, and so final, because I could see that the rest of my life I would just not stop repeating. But then God said "I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People 'You are my people'" (2:23). That word would have no comfort if you were not called Lo-ruhama ('No Mercy'). If God has mercy on you before then there is no word of mercy for you now. That is law and Gospel in action.

2. The cross drawing threads together

One thing that has always struck me about the OT is the finality of many of the pronouncements of punishment. So often it seems that this is not just discipline, this is judgment. It is not a warning of what may happen, but it is a dark promise of what is going to happen. And yet contradictions to these dark words always surface. This has always caused me a little bit of a problem. The doctrine of law and Gospel has helped sort this out for me. Mark Seifrid tends to put it better than most when he comments that there are different and contridictory words from God in the bible to us, but no resolution of them apart from in the event of Jesus' death and resurrection. For example in commenting on the Sander's characterisation of Second Temple Judaism as Covenantal Nomism he argues that Sanders' has actually reduced Second Temple Judaism to Covenantalism without the Nomism. In contrast in the past scholars have focused on the Nomism without the Covenantalism. "In other words in the rabbinic materials, 'covenantalism' (Sanders' 'covenantal nomism') stands alongside 'nomism' without the overarching synthesis which Sanders has proposed". "Rather than striving to produce a system in which all contradictions were eliminated, the rabbis view salvation from (at least) these two independent perspectives". Only in Jesus is there synthesis when "the election of Israel and the demand of the Law meet in Christ, the crucified and risen. The tension within early Jewish thought between grace and demand was resolved in an event, not a higher idea" (pp. 5-6, 'The "New Perspective on Paul" and Its Problems', Themelios, Issue 25-2

3. Law and Gospel as uses or effects

Something that has also helped me understand the doctrine of law and Gospel is the realisation that the same words in scripture can function as both. Stephen D. Paulson provides some helpful examples in a great essay (if you can get hold of it):

The two classic examples of this in Luther are his use of the first commandment and the proclamation of the cross and resurrection. "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me" produces both fear and love, and in one word or phrase gives both law and gospel grammatically. Its function will depend upon the receiving of faith or the hearing apart from faith. One hears the "I am" as the basis for the "you shall," and the other vice versa.

By the same token, the proclamation of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, though one sermon or word, has very different effects. When Peter says, "let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36), the hearers "were cut to the heart." A short time later, and in very different circumstances, the same sermon is preached and, "While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word" (Acts 10:44), and the hearers were heard extolling god in tongues.

(p.174, 'Law and Gospel: Two Preaching Offices", Dialog, Vol 39, No.3, Fall 2000)

4. Barth's Gospel-Law

One thing I have gathered in my limited reasoning is that Barth famously reversed the traditional order of law and Gospel. I have for the first time come across a hint of why, in his brilliant little book Dogmatics in Outline that I am reading:

Gospel and law are not to be separated; they are one, in such a way that the gospel is the primary thing, that the glad tidings are first in the field and, as such, include the law. Because God is for us, we may also be for Him. Because He has given Himself to us, we may also in gratitude give Him the trifle which we have to give. (p.19)

So the reversal comes from one of Barth's primary concerns that God reveals himself to us, and before that we can have nothing to do with him. God is gracious to reveal himself and so obviously before he does that the law doesn't come into it.

I am glad that I have the first inkling of what Barth was trying to get at.

Any recommendations?

After 4 years of studying law I now have at least 10 months without having to decipher a case report, so have a quite a bit of time on my hands. At the same time I'm feeling unusually unexcited about the books on my waiting-to-be-read list.

The comments box is open. What are your must-read books that I should read this winter? I will buy and read at least one from every comment.

Total Church Conference Audio

Audio from the North American Total Church Conference including Tim Chester and Steve Timmis is now available here (HT Tim Chester).

Some problems with Luther's theology

Just in case you were beginning to think that I think Luther is perfect...

If I had to do without one or the other - either the works or the preaching of Christ - I would rather do without the works than without his preaching. For the works do not help me, but his words give life, as he himself says [John 6:63]. Now John writes very little about the works of Christ, but very much about his preaching, while the other evangelists write much about his works and little about his preaching. Therefore John's Gospel is the one, fine, true and chief gospel, and is far, far to be preferred over the other three and placed high above them. So, too, the epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke.

("Preface to the New Testament" (1546), in Luther's Works, Vol. 35, p. 357)

Can we blame Luther for two of the problems that have continued today? An emphasis on the didactic rather than narrative parts of the Bible, and a approach that listens only to what it already agrees with.

I think we can but I also recognise that these two issues come out of some of the strengths of Luther's theology. Firstly, the Bible is not a book of examples for us to follow, but God speaking to us. Secondly, the recognition that the Bible points beyond itself to Jesus. However, I think they are still serious problems... I need to think more about this.

Viewing the church with the eyes of faith

Martin Luther writes:

This article, "I believe in the holy Christian Church," is as much an article of faith as the rest. This is why natural reason cannot recognize it, even if it puts on all its glasses. The devil can cover it over with offences and divisions, so that you have to take offence at it. God too can conceal it behind faults and shortcomings of all kinds so that you necessarily become a fool and pass false judgment on it. Christendom will not be known by sight, but by faith. And faith has to do with things not seen

("Preface to the Revelation of St. John [II]" (1546), in Luther's Works, Vol. 35, p. 410)

This connects with the Magisterial Reformers understanding of the marks of the church. Calvin writes:

Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Mt. 18:20)

[...]

We have said that the symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments, for these cannot anywhere exist without producing fruit and prospering by the blessing of God.

(Institutes 4.1.9-10)

The reason that the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments were identified as marks of the church was because of faith that these would not be without effect. God had promised that his word would not go forth without achieving his aim, so that must be the case. We may see evidence to contradict this but we have faith in God and his promises.

I need to do some thinking on how this relates to the renewed interest in the church as community. We are rediscovering that we are not independent souls that do not need each other but were saved as a body. However, this seems to be happening while we at the same time we judge that the Church is something we can define, see and touch. Today we rarely hear about the Reformers' marks of the Church, although we often hear about the mark being love.

I see both viewpoints as true to the Bible and experience, but I am concerned that I don't know how to relate them to each other. I suspect it has to do with eschatology.

On trusting authority

The wise author of nature hath planted in the human mind a propensity to rely upon human testimony before we can give a reason for doing so. This, indeed, puts our judgment almost entirely in the power of those who are about us in the first period of life; but this is necessary both to our preservation and to our improvement. If children were so framed as to pay no regard to testimony or authority, they must, in the literal sense, perish for lack of knowledge. I believed by instinct whatever they [my 'parents and tutors'] told me, long before I had the idea of a lie, or a thought of the possibility of their deceiving me. Afterwards, upon reflection, I found they had acted like fair and honest people, who wished me well. I found that, if I had not believed what they told me, before I could give a reason for my belief, I had to this day been little better than a changeling. And although this natural credulity hath sometimes occasioned my being imposed upon by deceivers, yet it hath been of infinite advantage to me upon the whole; therefore, I consider it as another good gift of Nature.

(Thomas Reid, "Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man", in R. Beanblossom and K. Lehrer (eds.), Thomas Reid's Inquiry and Essays (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983), pp. 281-82, cited in "Pyrrhon, Pyrrhus and the Possibility of the Past: A Response to David Henige" by Iain Provan, JSOT 27.4 (2003) 413-438)

Having quoted that because I think it is quite wise, I hasten to add that my faith is not that of my father's, in a great many different ways.

Random law fact from my 2 weeks of law overload:

• "George Bernard Shaw left money in his will on trust to develop a 40 letter alphabet (Re Shaw, Public Trustee v. Day [1957] 1 WLR 729)". The trust was held to be invalid.

The NT witness

From a great post from Glen Scrivener summing up the philosophy behind some of his recent posts on the parables

New Testament does not mean 'gospel'. It doesn’t mean 'gospel' any more than Old Testament means 'gospel'. Rather, both are witnesses to Christ.

You see it’s not the New Testament that fulfils the Old

No. Jesus fulfils the OT, not the NT. There’s a difference. It’s He that stands above both Scriptures.

[...]

The Old is in need of fulfilment in Christ yes. But so is the New. To understand Old or New demands that we read them as witness to Jesus.

It reminds me a little of The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord:

the term Gospel is not always employed and understood in one and the same sense, but in two ways, in the Holy Scriptures, as also by ancient and modern church teachers. For sometimes it is employed so that there is understood by it the entire doctrine of Christ, our Lord, which He proclaimed in His ministry upon earth, and commanded to be proclaimed in the New Testament, and hence comprised in it the explanation of the Law and the proclamation of the favor and grace of God, His heavenly Father, as it is written, Mark 1, 1: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And shortly afterwards the chief heads are stated: Repentance and forgiveness of sins [...] So Paul, too, calls his entire doctrine the Gospel, Acts 20, 21; but he embraces the sum of this doctrine under the two heads: Repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. [...] Furthermore the term Gospel is employed in another, namely, in its proper sense, by which it comprises not the preaching of repentance, but only the preaching of the grace of God, as follows directly afterwards, Mark 1, 15, where Christ says: Repent, and believe the Gospel. (source)

Although I'm also thankful to Glen for reminding me to make what I think the Gospel is fit Christ, and not Christ fit what I think the Gospel is (see his excellent post "Jesus, not some Christ-principle").

Rejecting reconciliation not revelation

Most modern Christian apologetics is a response to the Enlightenment and its apparent rejection of Christian revelation in favour of rationalism.

[...]

This reading of the history of Western thought has been challenged by Stephen Williams in his book, Revelation and Reconciliation. Williams argues that modern atheism has its roots elsewhere. The rejection of revelation is only a symptom of an underlying problem. The real problem is the rejection of the idea or reconciliation and all that is implicit in that idea: moral accountability to the Creator, human helplessness, and reconciliation with God through a substitutionary sacrifice. The underlying issue was not a rejection of the possibility of revelation, but a rejection of the actuality of revelation.

(pp.159-161, Tim Chester & Steve Timmis, Total Church: A radical reshaping around gospel and community, IVP)

I think it is right that the Enlightenment was not firstly a rejection of supernaturalism and so revelation. I think it had more to do with rejection of authority (rather than reconciliation). Having said that, God's saving action is where his authority is most clearly demonstrated (that was what the OT writers thought, e.g. Exodus 7:5, and NT writers followed when they said that 'Jesus is Lord').

Back to the internet

You will be pleased to know my revision is going well, but I'm allowing myself an evening of Internet after 5 days without it. The Desiring God Conference has been going off and lots of people are linking to the talks. I think I may skip them this year and listen to Still Deeper Conference talks which has some interesting titles and interesting people speaking.

Interestingly Total Church by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis is one of the Desiring God Conference recommended books. I've recently finished it and may even get round to a proper review at some point (probably another empty promise!) but I'm really pleased DG have recommended it. It deserves a wide readership.

No hero but Christ

So you are doing an overview of the bible. The covenant with Abraham has to be one of the first events you choose to tick off. Perhaps you will start with Genesis 12:1-9 where he is called to the promised land, to be made a great nation, and to be a blessing to the whole world. Would you then carry on to look at verses 10-20?

Session 4 of The World We All Want does go on to look at those verses, and I am now convinced that you should do. Not only do you see the first partial fulfilment of God's promise that 'I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse', but you see the sin of his people, and the overcoming grace of God. Great stuff!

Doing theology with non-Christians

...and new Christians.

I find time and again that talking to non-Christians forces me to take my theology to another level. 'I pray', says Paul to Philemon, 'that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ' (1:6). Unbelievers are not satisfied with the pat answers and unexplained terminology that Christians all too readily accept.

(p. 152, Tim Chester and Steve Timmis, Total Church: A radical reshaping around gospel and community, IVP)

Recent examples from my life:

• Free will
• Satan

More thoughts on the 'one body'

From an email to the friend I am thinking this through with (see my previous post for less developed thoughts).

On reflection I can think of several inter-related reasons why we are 'one body' in Paul's eyes.

We all share:

• 'one bread' (1 Corinthians 10:17)
• 'one baptism' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)
• 'one faith' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one hope' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one God and Father' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Lord' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Spirit' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)

So for Paul the ultimate cause of us being 'one body' is the Trinity (isn't great how Paul refers to all 3 persons in Ephesians 4:4-6?). The promise of the Trinity is communicated (not just mentally) to us by the sacraments, and we embrace the promise contained in the sacraments by faith. The sacraments are promises that we can share in the death of Christ (Romans 6; Ephesians 2:16) but then also share in the same Spirit (a Spirit of life, John 6:63, Romans 8) by which he was raised (Romans 8:11; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44; Mark 1:8; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

I like your observation that 'one body' has a corporal dimension. 'Body' for Paul is closely associated with 'flesh' and death. There is only one death which leads to life and that is Christ's death. His is the only cursed flesh where salvation can still be found. So he is also the 'body' which we need to find ourselves in. However for Paul 'body' is not as negative as 'flesh'/'death' and he is able to talk happily about our 'spiritual body' too (1 Corinthians 15:44).

However returning to our original discussion about where the term originated I think there are only two options:

1. The institution of the Lord's Supper.
2. The OT concept of marriage between God and Israel which Paul picks up and applies to Christ and the Church ('one flesh' is a small step away from 'one body', cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16).

It is interesting how it is difficult to imagine any closer union than either consuming something (food) or sexual union, and this is how the NT so often describes our relationship to Christ. We eat him, and we marry him! Incredible condescension to miserable sinners! He doesn't give gifts from on high, but comes down to us and gives us himself.

A question for allegorical interpreters of the Song of Solomon

How do you deal with the refrain that first occurs in Song of Solomon 2:7? It reads:

I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the does of the field, that you not stir up or awaken love until it pleases. (Song of Solomon 2:7; cf. 3:5, 8:4)

I can understand this phrase as an interjection into 'a poem celebrating human love and sexuality' (p. xiii, Song of Songs (NICOT), by Tremper Longman III), but why would we not stir up love for Christ?

I've looked up Matthew Henry and John Gill who follow the allegorical interpretation and they seem to be using the reading do 'not stir up or awaken my love' - i.e. do not bother Christ or the church (depending on who you think is speaking). Is this a valid translation?

Longman seems to admit of two meanings of the warning:

One suggestion is that the phrase has the force of a “do not disturb sign.” Don’t disturb us until our love (the love of the man and the woman) has had its fill. Yet this seems an odd way to express the idea. More naturally, the verse is a warning of the woman to other women who may look on the relationship and want to experience something similar; she is, in essence, telling them not to force it. Wait for love to blossom; don’t hurry it. In a sense, then, the daughters of Jerusalem are surrogates for the reader. We too are to learn the same lesson: Wait for love to blossom; don’t try to stimulate it artificially…. She warns the others not to arouse love until they are ready to meet its rigors, both physical and emotional. Love is not a passing fling but rather a demanding and exhausting relationship. (pp. 115-116)

In addition to what Longman says I can see how a longing for the love you see in happy couples can actually lead to lust, and the idolatry of that kind of relationship.

So I cannot see how such an important verse can be made to fit the allegorical interpretation, for all its other strengths. At the moment I remain an unfashionable literalist, but please try and pursuade me.

PS I realise 6 posts in 2 days is not very good for a person only 3 weeks away from a very important exam... but I have a lot of stuff going round my head. I think it is all out though now!

1 Corinthians 11:29

Paul writes:

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

My pastor thinks that 'the body' we have to discern is the church. After all Paul's intention in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is to dissuade the church from having divisions, particularly between rich and poor. He wants them to realise that they are one body. It is also supported by the wider context, particularly 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul is going.

I think that it is more likely that 'the body' refers to Christ's presence in the elements of the Lord's Supper (the traditional interpretation). The immediate context is that of eating and drinking, and the previous reference to the 'body' is verse 27 is to the body as the bread. This is not in conflict with Paul's main intention in this passage either because it is just because of the one bread that we share that we divisions are inappropriate.

Paul does not just discuss the Lord's Supper as an example of where divisions in the Corinthian church are evident, but because it is also where he can demonstrate how inappropriate this is.

Note There are actually three possible interpretations of 'the body' that I can think of. They are all possible because they are all interrelated:

• The person of Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ present in the elements of the Lord's Supper
• The church in Christ

The body of Christ

A friend of mine at church today asked a very good question: where does Paul get the concept of the body of Christ from?

It is a very good question because 'the body' is a very 'weird' concept, and secondly, unlike most other concepts in the NT, it does not seem to originate in either the OT or the ancient Mediterranean world.

On reflection there is only one place that it can come from and that is the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. However, it is still quite a leap from the words 'this is my body' to the sophisticated and multi-layered concept that it is so important to Paul and which he assumes the churches he writes to will understand.

I don't know quite how Paul came to add so much colour to the concept but I think he indicates how he made the connection from the Lord's supper to the church in 1 Cor 10:16-17:

The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

For Paul, the reason we are one body is because we all share in one body, and the body in both instances is 'of Christ'. The Lord's Supper forms the community that we are part of.

Of course, it is not the Lord's Supper that is ultimately the cause. It is one of many interconnected causes in different dimensions. We are one body because we have 'one Lord' and 'one God and Father of all', because we share these we have 'one faith' and 'one hope', which are communicated to us by 'one baptism' and 'one bread' (Eph 4:4-6; 1 Cor 10:17; 1 Cor 12:13).

Modern evangelicals tend to be happy to talk about our shared Lord and shared faith which join us together, but are unhappy to talk about the shared sacraments. Ritual is often then shunned as either pointless or even harmful. Others are more than happy to talk about the sacraments but lose sight of the Lord that gave them to us and that there is more come. For them ritual can become all there is and Christ is lost sight of because, for example, the sacrifice is happening 'here and now' which is more important than the 'then'.

Reformers on the frequency of the Lord's Supper

Calvin

'No meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper and almsgiving' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.44).

'the Lord's Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.46)

Luther

'As oft as ye do it, it is nevertheless implied that we should do it often; and it is added for the reason that He wishes to have the Sacrament free, not limited to special times, like the Passover of the Jews, which they were obliged to eat only once a year, and that just upon the fourteenth day of the first full moon in the evening, and which they must not vary a day. As if He would say by these words: I institute a Passover or Supper for you which you shall enjoy not only once a year, just upon this evening, but often, when and where you will, according to every one's opportunity and necessity, bound to no place or appointed time; although the Pope afterwards perverted it, and again made a Jewish feast of it.' (Luther, Large Catechism, The Sacrament of the Altar)

'people should be told in sermons to receive Communion three or four times a year in order that, strengthened by the Word, them may afterward fall asleep' (p.305, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel ed. and trans. Theodore G. Tappert [1539])

'we should not compel anyone to believe or to receive the Sacrament and should not fix any law or time or place for it. Instead, we should preach in such a way that the people make themselves come without our law and just plain compel us pastors to administer the Sacrament to them....if they believed that they possessed so much evil and needed so much good, they would not neglect the Sacrament...they would come on their own, rushing and running to it; they would compel themselves to come and would insist that you give them the Sacrament' (Luther, Preface to the Small Catechism)

'the whole congregation should come together on Sundays, and mass and Vespers be sung, as has been customary. In both services there should be preaching for the whole congregation, in the morning on the Gospel for the day, in the evening on the Epistle...If anyone desires to receive the sacrament at thhis time, let it be administered at a time convenient to all concerned.

'The daily masses should be completely discontinued; for the Word is important annd not the mass. But if any should desire the sacrament during the week, let mass be held as inclination and time dictate; for in this matter one cannot make hard and fast rules.' (p.377, 'Concerning the Order of Public Worship' in Selected Writings of Martin Luther: 1520-1523, ed. Theodore G. Tappert)

Others

'For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved.' (Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 14.1)

'The day when the Lord's Supper is ministered, which commonly is used once a month, or so oft as the congregation shall think expedient' (Knox, Genevan Book of Order (1556))

In Zwingli's Zurich the 'communion service was to be held four times in the year, - at Easter, Whitsunday, autumn, and Christmas' (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity. The Swiss Reformation, The Reformation In Zurich. 1519-1526, § 20. The Reformed Celebration of the Lord’s Supper)

Questions to ask about your practice of the Lord's Supper

This is reflection on my previous post.

• Do we 'devote' ourselves to the Lord's supper (cf. Acts 2:42)? How often is it celebrated? How prominant is it in the service structure?
• Do we express the unity of the body in our practice of it? I am not suggesting that we all slavishly ensure that we use one loaf, one cup, or indeed that we eat round one table, but we should be doing all we can to express this. Perhaps all the congregation could eat/drink at once if one cup/loaf is not being used. Perhaps children should participate. Perhaps it should not be tacked on to the end of a service with an oportunity for people to leave in between.
• Do we look backwards at Christ's death? Is this reflected in the actions or just in the words?
• Do we look forward to Christ's second coming? It particularly struck me in reading the passages that all look forward to the coming consumation of the Kingdom of God. It is also interesting that in current discussion the realisation that the Lord's supper looks forward to the Messianic banquet, where as traditionally it has usually been seen to 'remember' what has already happened. We need to do both.
• Do we judge ourselves truly to avoid being judged? Is it something that we approach fearfully in the knowledge that it can bring death as well as life?
• Do we believe that there objective benefits obtained by participating?
• Do we believe that Christ is truly present in/with the bread and wine? I'm not getting into debates about bodily presence etc but all sides should be in agreement that Christ is present in some way. Do we really believe it though?

Notes on NT accounts of the Lord's Supper

Elements of the Lord's Supper according to the four biblical accounts of its institution (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26):

• In the context of a meal (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; 1 Cor 11:23; 33-34)
• Thanksgiving (Luke 22:17; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Blessing of the bread (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22)
• Identification of the wine as the (new) covenant (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• Identification of the wine with Jesus' blood (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• Identification of the bread with Jesus' body (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Breaking of the bread (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Done in rememberance of Jesus (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25)
• Anticipation of the coming of the Kingdom of God or Jesus' second coming (Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:15, 18; 1 Cor 11:26)
• Immediate context of betrayal (Matt 26:14-16, 21-25; Mark 14:10-11, 18-21; Luke 22:3-6, 21-23; 1 Cor 11:23)
• 'For forgiveness of sins' (Matt 26:28), 'for you' (Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor 11:24), 'for many' (Mark 14:24)
• Bread first (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22, 1 Cor 11:24), or wine first (Luke 22:17)
• One loaf eaten (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 10:17)
• One cup drunk from (Matt 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17)
• New passover (Matt 26:18; Mark 14:14; Luke 22:15)

Benefits:

• Forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28)
• Participation in Christ, particularly his body and blood, so particularly his death (1 Cor 10:16)
• Unites the church (1 Cor 10:17)
• Proclaims 'the Lord's death' (1 Cor 11:26)
• Jesus is remembered (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25)
• We are covenanted with (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• We are fed (obviously physically but presumably spiritually as well)

The real unity of the Bible

I love biblical theology. But I do think it has limitations, and it should not be made an end in itself. There is someone more fundamental than a story.

Mark Seifrid gets it:

It is worth reminding ourselves that just as Scripture has not been given to us as a dogmatic outline, neither has it been given to us as a single, unified story. It is a collection of narratives that not only complement one another but also overlap and stand in tension with one another. There are two accounts of creation in Genesis, two accounts of the Davidic monarchy, and four Gospels. The Psalms tell and retell the story of Israel in ways that are sometimes remarkably different from one another. More significant than the variations in perspective, and often lying behind these variations, are the differing ways in which God encounters his people.

[...]

The narrative is held together, not by a "strong historical continuity" as [Tom] Wright claims, but by the love and power of the Creator alone. That brings us finally, and decisively, to the human encounter with the God who, out of unconditioned love, forgives sin, promises salvation and blessing, and in Jesus Christ has brought his promises to fulfillment. In the gospel, God reveals himself to us beyond all other encounters with him as our loving, forgiving, and saving Creator.

(pp.24-25, "The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N.T. Wright", Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol 72:1, January 2008)

You can change

...but just wanted to say that You can change: God's transforming power for our sinful behaviour and negative emotions, Tim Chester's new book, is exceptionally good and may just be my book of the year so far. I read it very quickly, but I think it is best read slowly so I'm going to do that with the extra material on the IVP website.

You really should buy it now.

I've tried a few times to adequately put down a paragraph long review but don't feel like I am doing it justice. So I will brutalise Paul Tripp's endorsement:

• This book is 'brutally honest'. It is real not just in Tim being honest about his struggles to change, but in forcing you to be honest about your own heart and motives both to change and to sin. You cannot sit on the sidelines when reading this book.

• This book is also 'carefully theological'. Not in a dry or detached way. It is soaked in the bible and theology because of a conviction that it is truth that will set us free. Change comes through hearing the word and believing it.

• And finally, this book is 'gloriously hopeful' because it shows that you can change. Not on your own strength, not easily, and not completely this side of death, but certainly because of God's promises.

If there was just one thing I will take away from this first reading it is that if I am serious about change then I have to be serious about confessing to, loving and engaging with the Christian community I am a part of. A community deeply involved in each others lives and itself is changing is the best place to change personally.

Anyway...

Dave Bish has already reviewed it, and liked it so don't believe me, believe him. Also read extracts and endorsements here and here.

Here is a video of Tim introducing the book:

Finally, I will just add that it hasn't come as a surprise to me that this book is so good. I have read most of Tim Chester's output and it has all been brilliant. Other titles I will happily recommend you read include:

• The Busy Christians Guide to Busyness
• Delighting in the Trinity
• Good News to the Poor
• The Gospel-Centred Church (co-authored with Steve Timmis)
• From Creation To New Creation: Understanding the Bible Story
• The Message of Prayer (Bible Speaks Today Series)
• ...I still need to read Total Church which he co-authored with Steve Timmis. It's sitting on my shelf.
• Oh yes, I shouldn't forget The World We All Want: A Course on How the Bible Really Works which I'm currently going through with a friend and is so far proving a hit.

You can buy them all from his Amazon.co.uk store here.

Happy reading.... now back to the OU study I should be doing.

Total Church Conference Videos

The Total Church North America Conference happened last month. Some videos are starting to come up on Google Videos and will go up on the website soon (HT D Goodmanson).

You don't need to be a church leader to benefit.

... I'm away at the moment

Sorry for the lack of blogging people. Unfortunately this is likely to continue till 13 October when I have my final law exam. Not much time for reading and even less time for blogging.

On the bright side I get to listen to lots of good music while studying.

The revealed Word leading you to the hidden God

Luther says in a Table Talk:

"consideration must be given to the revealed God on the one hand and to knowledge of the unrevealed [hidden] will of God on the other. Of the latter nothing at all is known to us. We must confess that what is beyond our comprehension is nothing for us to bother about. [...God] says in effect: "Let me remain hidden. Otherwise you will fall into the abyss of hell, as it is written, 'He who inquires into the majesty of God shall be crushed by it.' [Prov26:27] In this place leave me untouched. Carnal wisdom shall here have its limit. Here I wish to remain unrevealed. I shall reveal your election in another way. From the unrevealed God I shall become the revealed God. I shall incarnate my Son and shall give you one who will enable you to see whether you are elected. do this: Give up your speculations which are apart from the Word of God, thoroughly root them out, and drive them to the devil in hell. ' This is my beloved Son. Hear ye him'.["...] Christ says, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." [John 14:9] Christ will lead you to the hidden God."

(pp.132-133, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel, Translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert).

Further reading on the hidden and revealed will of God can be found in Calvin's Institutes in book 1 chapters 17 and 18 (especially in the first few sections of each chapter)

Helpfully this is when Calvin is dealing with God's providence which includes him being in some way behind evil acts, whilst his will is clearly for good acts. Predestination to salvation really follows from this less contested teaching.