John Stott says he finds it helpful to think over the claims of Jesus under three headings (are you surprised it is not four?):
Now if God is not what he is towards us in Jesus Christ then of course there is no fidelity between what God is towards us and what he is in Jesus Christ, and therefore the revelation is not ultimately trustworthy, it is not ultimately something upon which all our knowledge of God can rest.
But tie that up also with the love of God. If what we have in Jesus, the love so manifest and embodied in Jesus, is not rooted in the very being of God. If God himself is not loving us and acting out his love in the life and death of Jesus, then that means that God does not love us to the uttermost, to the extent that he really became one with us in the incarnation and cross of Christ.
That means that there is no essential real connection between what we call 'love' defined by Jesus and what God is in his own being; and so we cannot say that God is love. And so cut the bond of being between Christ and God and we are left in the dark with an inscrutable deity behind the back of Jesus Christ. Now, a manifestation of God for which Jesus Christ does not, as it were, go bail or for which he is not a sure pledge.
Now pastorally this is one of the most fearful thing that can afflict people. I remember on the battlefield a soldier with only half an hour to live asking me 'padre, is God really like Jesus' and I can remember people in the parish wondering whether God was ultimately really like Jesus or not. You see behind the back of Jesus they've got some concept of God that is dark and terrifying.
(Tom Torrance in one of the MP3 Mediation of Christ lectures - I can't remember which)
Helmut Thielicke puts into words some frustrating feelings that I have about my experience of speaking to those who wouldn't call themselves Christians:
Aren't discussions, by their very nature, endless? Do they not go on spawning new discussions? Doesn't every serious discussion end with the conclusion that this is where we really have to begin, and that we have arrived not at a period but only at a colon? Isn't this constant beginning anew the sign that we are moving in a circle, a curved line that never ends? This is disquieting, for the circle is ultimately the symbol of noncommitment.
If one examines the conversations of Jesus, one will note that they always end in an arrest, in a sudden termination of the circular. Without exception they end in a "Hix Rhodus, his salta." ["Here you must leap or retreat"] They end at the steep escarpment of a message which cannot be avoided by any detour.
(p.x, I Believe: The Christian Creed)
From this he explains why it is important to teach the "forbidding wall" of the Apostles' Creed. That certain facts must be reckoned with and confessed. However, he is somewhat troubled by his own conclusion, and again puts into words a feeling I have, this time speaking to those who would call themselves Christians but don't seem to know what that means:
We must ask whether the creed is not a continual enumeration of some things which we must believe. Is it permissible to speak of faith at all in this additive way? Are we allowed to say anything more than the simple confession, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief"? Is there such a thing as a minimal content of belief, the possession of which gives me the right to call myself a disciple? Didn't the people to whom Jesus attributed great faith actually believe very little so far as content was concerned, and, what is more, was not that little - as in the case of the woman with the hemorrhage (Matt. 9:20 ff.) - actually very questionable?
(p. xii, ibid)
... lots of questions which I share. No answers!
According to the ESV the phrase "breach of faith" or "broke faith" only occurs outside the Pentatuach in Joshua with the sin of Achan, in the introduction to Chronicles, and then in Ezra 10. Chronicles begins with four breaches of faith:
I guess this is a chiasm. The difficult thing to do is work out what it means.
It is interesting also that Ezra (which traditionally has been held to be written by the same person as Chronicles) takes up the phrase in connection with the returned exiles marrying foreign women (Ezra 10).
What do you make of all that?
Peter Dray has just posted a typically pastorally perceptive post on what he terms 'Evangelism-driven legalism'. You should read it.
In it he shares his concerns about quite how we sometimes argue like this:
- Unbelievers will have the gospel commended to them by Christian behaviour, and so will want to ask questions of Christians.
- Therefore make an effort to impress non-believers by your behaviour - this might take various forms: be outgoing, be generous at work, arrive early at church to chat to newcomers... and so on.
I think it worth thinking about at length. Because the argument is correct and true, but yet it so often does lead people to a place of crushing legalism. As Peter rightly points out the only way we can teach this truth, without it leading to nasty consequences, is by always teaching it in a context soaked in grace.
One thing Peter only touches on, but I think flows out of this, are the consequences for what we mean by attractive holy lives. As sinners, holiness is as much about how we react to our sin, as how we avoid sinning. What is more attractive than someone who is open about their failings, but who keeps trying to change; someone who is pained by the consequences of their sin, but always full of confident joy that they have been forgiven?
Richard Bauckham recently won the 2009 Michael Ramsey prize for his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
It is hard to deny that Richard Bauckham is a remarkable scholar who has genuinely redefined the debate in a whole number of areas (eyewitnesses in the gospels, Christology in the early church and Gospel audiences). But what has made him such a good theologian? Our attitude towards God is of course what really defines whether we are 'good' theologians or not. But the question is wider, if not deeper than that observation.
Kim Fabricius thinks he knows what makes Bauckham a good theologian. He has noticed that Bauckham seems to read a lot of novels. He argues that: 'Fiction is as intrinsic to continuing ministerial education as theology. And that's because there is no greater theological resource for moral and spiritual formation than a great novel'.
Martin Luther apperently agreed because he desired 'that there shall be as many poets and rhetoricians as possible, because I see that by these studies, as by no other means, people are wonderfully fitted for the grasping of sacred truth and for handling it skillfully and happily' (HT JT). Perhaps an enjoyment of 'culture' is essential to being a good theologian when theology is as much art as science (Theodore Gill in an editorial of Theology Today in 1986 certainly thought so).
However another possible cause of what makes Richard Bauckham a good theologian is that he is wide-ranging in his studies and writings. Michael Bird and Craig Keener have both recently written in encouragement of generalists in Biblical Studies, and Richard Bauckham has certainly written on a wide variety of areas in NT studies. He has written books on Revelation, Peter, Jude, James, the Gospels and the Early Church. But he has even gone beyond that and has written a monograph on the theology of Jurgen Moltmann!
No doubt a theologian could benefit from a whole range of different things. But what do you think are the most important, or neglected, practices for theologians?
I still like Luther's three rules of prayer, meditation and Experience (or Anfechtung), and would probably also add pastoral work. I have commented in that past that it is pastor-theologians who have influenced me most of all.
Iain Provan argues that Solomon's request for wisdom in 1 Kings 3 is actually a form of repentance. Solomon already has wisdom in 1 Kings 2. As he is dying David gives instructions to Solomon to kill Joab 'according to [his] wisdom' (v.6) and Shamei because he is 'a wise man' (v.9).
These instructions seem pretty brutal. Joab has been David's loyal (if violent) right hand man for decades. David swore never to kill Shamei, but now suggests Solomon does so. If both these men deserved to die a long time ago, it is questionable why David has waited till now to execute justice. Doubtless David found Joab very useful while he was alive, but recognises that he and Shamei may turn out to be threats to Solomon's power in the future. Justice has been made secondary to realpolitik.
After obeying his father's instructions and so establishing the kingdom (2:46), we come to the famous passage where Solomon asks for wisdom. But he doesn't just ask for wisdom he asks to be able to 'discern between good and evil' (3:9). This 'pleased the Lord' because he did not ask for 'long life', 'riches' or 'the life of your enemies' (3:11). Because the Lord is pleased he not only gives Solomon the wisdom he requests but gives what he has not asked for: riches and long life. But he doesn't promise him the other thing he didn't ask for: the life of his enemies.
And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 13:28-31)
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 8:8-10)
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." (Galatians 5:13-14)
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," you are doing well. (James 2:8)
Does anyone else find it odd that of the two greatest commandments which sum up the law, Paul and James say only the second is necessary to 'fulfil' the law. To love your neighbour as yourself keeps the whole law according to Paul. But what about the God-ward commandment, which is the first not just in order but priority?
While that may just seem an oddity, the fact we are still required keep such a sweeping commandment creates an additional problem. We often remind people that nobody loves God with their whole heart, mind, soul and strength. But isn't the second great commandment equally impossible? It is very nice of God to 'let us off' having to keep the first commandment, but the second will break us as well. Not very freeing is it?
Yet Paul in Galatians says that loving our neighbour as ourselves is living in freedom. James says we have to do what the 'law of liberty' says (1:25) which is presumably the same as the 'royal law' of 2:8. However, we may feel that far from being free we are still living under subjection to commands and laws if we have to obey this great (OT, indeed Mosaic) commandment. True, it seems we are given a little more freedom to work out what loving our neighbour may mean in practice. Rather than having it spelled out in detail for us (e.g. command to leave the edges of the field for the poor, Leviticus 19:9) we can decide the best way to help to help our neighbour ourself. But when Paul talks about freedom, he means more than this. He means freedom from the curse of not keeping the law and freedom from the sin it enlivens.
Perhaps the solution is contained in Luther's famous observation, in The Freedom of the Christian, of how we are both free and enslaved as Christians:
A Christian is perfectly free lord of all, subject to none.
A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.
The first statement concerns our God-ward relationship. The second statement our human-ward relationships. They relate to what Luther described as two different kinds of righteousness.
The distinction between two kinds of righteousness rests upon the observation that there are two dimensions to being a human creature. One dimension involves our life with God, especially in the matters of death and salvation. The other dimension involves our life with God’s creatures and our activity in this world. In the former we receive righteousness before God through faith on account of Christ. In the latter, we achieve righteousness in the eyes of the world by works when we carry out our God-given responsibilities.
These two dimensions of life are not unconnected, as Jesus demonstrates clearly when he answers the question 'Which commandment [singular] is the most important of all?' with two commandments. However they are ordered and distinguishable.
Only being righteous in the first (vertical) dimension can lead to being righteous in the second. But being righteous in the second cannot bring righteousness in the first. As Luther says: 'Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works; evil works do not make a wicked man, but a wicked man does evil works' (Freedom of the Christian). This is because it is God who justifies (Romans 8:33) and the judgment of men is meaningless (Luke 16:15). It is our relationship to God which defines whether we are righteous or not.
But God's justifying declaration, like all his words is creative. So righteousness in the first dimension not only can but will lead to righteousness in the second dimension. That is why Paul can express such incredulity when despite being justified before God we are not acting as just people in the world, and why James says that Abraham's 'faith was completed by his works' (2:22). If God has declared us righteous in Christ by faith, in the promise of baptism, then we must be righteous not just before God but before men.
This certainty that one kind of righteousness will lead to the other is why (human-ward) works do not supply something that (God-ward) faith lacks, but instead 'perfect' or 'complete' faith. As Seifrid comments on James' statement that we are justified by works:
His formulation is important: he does not say that they were justified 'by faith and works', but they were justified by works alone! Justification ultimately must be by works, because works are faith's perfection [...] works that justify are never alone. They are an outworking of faith, which is present with them
(pp.180-181, Mark Seifrid, Christ our Righteousness)
So works do not fulfil a law which has not already been fulfilled by Christ who is received by faith. Instead they complete what has already begun, in one sense what has already happened, in Christ's death and resurrection. This is why James says that in Abraham's work of offering up Isaac 'the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"' (2:23). What God had promised before the act (that Abraham was righteous) was being played out (fulfilled) in his obedience through his faith in that promise. God did not lie in speaking when Abraham was a sinner, but created the reality.
This word is perhaps what James is talking about in 1:23-25. He says:
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.
The word tells us who we are in Christ Jesus. We are righteous in God's sight because Jesus loved God with all his heart, mind and strength. We can forget that truth and so don't live like it is true. But if we remember that image of ourselves, and believe it, we will act like it.
Does that makes sense? I've sort of skated along at quite a rate pulling in quite a bit of stuff, and maybe haven't been quite as focused as I should have been.
Further thoughts here.
I think there would be more light and less heat if in discussions on the law people defined their terms. I think there are three main meanings of 'the law'. The trouble is people import concepts from one to another. Here are my three:
1. The Torah
2. Commands
3. God's word working death
The law [1] contains, but is not exclusively, law [2] which usually functions as law [3] to cause us to run to the Gospel.
The Torah is the Mosaic Covenant which contained both commands and promises. And the promises are not all conditional!
Commands are found not just in the Mosaic Covenant but throughout the bible; even Galatians. They can condemn us because they reveal our sin (2nd use of the law), but inherently they are good and so can help reveal how we should live once we have been saved (3rd use of the law).
God's word working death can come through commands (using the 2nd use of the law) but not exclusively (it can also come through phrases like 'Christ died for my sins' - see here) God's word working death is opposed to his word working life. But everlasting life can only be found by going through death. This is the meaning of 'law' in the phrase 'law and gospel' if that phrase is used in its true sense.
All quotes from Philipp Melanchthon's Loci Communes (1543) translated by JAO Preus, pp. 72-74.
My previous post was sparked by this great passage from Oswald Bayer:
When Luther emphasizes that the law, as it functions, is there already, already determining human existence - as sinful existence - he certainly acknowledges thereby that it in fact precedes the gospel, but not that it has ultimate priority over the gospel. The actual superiority of the gospel remains unaffected [...] If the gospel is considered to be nothing other than the defeat of evil and sin, one runs a risk of minimizing the truth about creation. But Luther sees the work of God already in his creation, when he gives gifts without having to, coming solely by the grace of God, and in that sense already "evangelical." As the means for dispensing the new creation, the gospel has a superabundance of positives, nothing like the way it is described when it is understood exclusively in the context of ways to deal with the negative.
In that the law brings an awareness of unbelief, it presumes the existence of faith and the gospel, materially and logically. For unfaith, as a turning toward false gods, does not work death and destruction in and of itself; that happens in, with, and under the turning away from the true, only, good God. Unfaith is sin because of its rejection of the eternal fellowship promised by God. It is due to rebellion against such fellowship, and thus is rebellion against the gospel, if it is correct that the preamble of the Decalogue - God's self-introduction and self-communication - is pure gospel. In the same way the threat of death (Gen. 2:17) can really be understood only in relation to the preceding promise of life and free provision of gifts (Gen. 2:16).
(p.62-63, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation)
Interesting that he sees the sequence as determined by whether we are thinking in terms of creation and redemption. Interesting also that he describes unbelief in sacramental language (in, with, and under) as communicating death and destruction.
1. Law and Gospel or Gospel and Law?
(a) In the discussion about the so called Covenant of Works, or Adamic Administration, Reformed theologians may ask: Was Adam under law or gospel? If you read Michael Horton & Co they would argue that it is traditional Reformed position to say he was under the law. Horton argues that 'it is anachronistic to require grace or mercy as the foundation of creation and covenant in the beginning, as Karl Barth and many recent Reformed Theologians do' because Adam was 'entirely capable of maintaining himself in a a state of integrity' (p.84, Michael Horton, God of Promise).
But this is considering law/gospel only in the realm of redemption. What about the realm of creation?
(b) As creatures we merit nothing and so even our existence is an act of grace and mercy.
But creation and redemption are not unconnected as Isaiah and Paul so often remind us. The Reformed tradition has always been strong on this and so you find when biblical theologians from the Reformed tradition like Tom Wright or Graeme Goldsworthy get involved they stress New Creation, and they also place the gospel first. You often see this in discussions about the Mosaic law. Graeme Goldsworthy comments:
'The heart of the [Mosaic] law is the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) which are prefaced by the significant phrase, 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.' These words should govern our understanding of the Sinai law. Here we see that God declares that he is the God of his people, that he has already saved them. What follows then cannot be a programme aimed to achieve salvation by works since they have already received it by grace.' (p.62, Gospel and Kingdom)
2. Problems with the either ordering
(a) When law is placed before the gospel it can be seen as only bad. Or only functionally good (because it leads to the gospel) not good in itself. So it can be forgotten and dropped as soon as you've got to the gospel.
(b) When the gospel is placed before law then the two are usually mingled. Karl Barth explicitly does this:
'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, Dogmatics in Outline)
I'm going to have to think some more, but I think the solution maybe not to choose between gospel-law or law-gospel, but recognising the bible story-line and choose gospel-law-gospel.
Any thoughts?
This is basically the same point as he makes in a quotation I have previously posted but it is better put so I'll post this quotation as well.
In its universalizing of the gospel, the modern age is antinomian, but at the same time it is increasingly nomistic.
By its very name, which is crafted to characterize its self-understanding, the modern age distinguishes itself as having an "evangelical" character. It conceptualizes itself as a new age that cannot be outdone, standing under the banner of freedom. It is assumed thereby that the law has in principle been vanquished already: the human being is by nature free, good, and spontaneous. In this sense the modern age is antinomian.
But whatever the new human being of the modern age is, that is what he or she must first become. The gospel of freedom, which is universally said to exist, puts the human being under the pressure to redeem himself at the very same time, and calls for him to achieve the potential that is by very nature his already. But if freedom is not promised and imparted, if instead it is characteristic of me from the outset, if I define myself in relation to it, then I am weighted down, in my individual and collective subjectivity, with having to fulfill the promise of what has been provided for me - not freed for freedom but at the same time " to freedom condemned" (Satre). It is not that I am able to be free, but that I have to free myself. Thus the reverse side of antinomism is nomism.
(italics original, pp.65-66, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation)
I know that I feel the contradiction in the modern age that Bayer describes, and know other people who feel this, particularly in relationship to careers. It is not just non-Christians that are part of this culture.
The pre-modern age was characterised by a lack of freedom, a constraint by a 'law', of being born to do the job your father did. 80 years ago women felt constrained by an expectation that they would not have a career, but would instead be a housewife. The present age promises freedom to be whatever we want to be. But while promising this freedom we are then thrown back on ourselves to embrace this freedom and achieve the maximum possible. What is good news also condemns and oppresses us.
I am beginning to develop a theory that there is a Luther factoid that relates to almost any topic of conversation. My friends are probably starting to get a bit tired of my trying to work out if this theory is borne out in practice.
The latest factoid I have learnt was that 'Luther had only one phrase of the entire German Bible typeset in capital letters: SVNDE VERGJBT (forgives sins) (Rom. 3:25), which he further identified in a marginal gloss as "the chief point" and the "center-point of this epistle and the entire Scripture"' (p.76, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology).
Anyway, this post is to kick off a few more posts on Luther's theology. I know my few readers will probably agree with my friends that I am perhaps a little obsessive, but while I am reading other stuff it is just not quite as interesting to me!
Not the reactions you would expect:
'Now two men remained in the camp, one named Eldad, and the other named Medad, and the Spirit rested on them. They were among those registered, but they had not gone out to the tent, and so they prophesied in the camp. And a young man ran and told Moses, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp." And Joshua the son of Nun, the assistant of Moses from his youth, said, "My lord Moses, stop them." But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!"' (Numbers 11:26-29)
'John answered, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us." But Jesus said to him, "Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you."' (Luke 9:49-50)
'Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.' (Philippians 1:15-18)
I think I'm more inclined to have the attitude of Joshua and John than Moses, Jesus and Paul sometimes.
One of many things I could do with sitting down and have a think about is how Christian's should approach their death.
Dying well was of massive importance to our ancestors but I don't think I really know what it would look like in reality. Food for thought has been provided by Mark Thompson's excellent post on death. I would encourage you to read it, as well as to read Oscar Cullmann's comparison between the death of Socrates and Christ... whether we should approach our death in the same way as Christ's is part of the big question though.
So here are my study questions on 'The Weight of Glory' by CS Lewis. It is for a discussion with a group of very clever people so should be interesting to lead. My problems with the essay may come out in questions 3.(b) and 4.(d).
The difficult thing has been finding a balance between letting Lewis have his say, letting the bible have its say and then analysing Lewis. I'm not 100% happy that I've achieved this. Also there is just so much in the essay that it has been difficult choosing what to explore and what not to. I may have to leave out section 5 if discussion goes on. Any suggestions would be even more welcome than usual.
‘We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire’
(a) Is it mercenary for Christians to seek happiness when living out their faith?
‘Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.’ (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, "Hope")
(a) Do you agree with the argument?
(b) Lewis finds ‘our desires, not too strong, but too weak […] we are far too easily pleased’. A non-Christian may say that they are perfectly happy with their life as it is, and don’t have a ‘God-shaped hole’ waiting to be filled. Does this invalidate the argument from desire?
‘These things – the beauty, the memory of our own past – are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers’
(a) How can we enjoy God’s good creation without it being an idol and rival to God for our affections?
[I think I might show this video before the next bit to mix it up a little!]
‘The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things - the beauty, the memory of our own past - are good images of what we really desire […] they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune wee have not heard […] When all the suns and nebulae have passed away, each one of you will still be alive. Nature is only the image, the symbol […] We are summoned to pass in through Nature, beyond her, into that splendour which she fitfully reflects.’
(b) Does this downplay the goodness of Nature (because beauty is not ‘in’ it)?
(c) Does this overplay the role of Nature (because the beauty, which is God, comes ‘through’ it)?
‘Glory suggests two ideas to me, of which one seems wicked and the other ridiculous. Either glory means to me fame, or it means luminosity.’
(a) Can you think of biblical passages that speak of glory as ‘fame’?
(b)In the light of them how well do you think Lewis does at explaining how ‘fame’ is something ‘of heaven’ rather than ‘of hell’?
(c) Can you think of biblical passages that speak of glory as ‘luminosity’?
(d) In the light of them how well do you think Lewis does at explaining how ‘luminosity’ is not ‘ridiculous’?
‘If our religion is something objective, then we must never avert our eyes from those elements in it which seem puzzling or repellent; for it will be precisely the puzzling or the repellent which conceals what we do not yet know and need to know’ He applies that to the idea of glory and concludes: ‘having followed up what seemed puzzling and repellent in the sacred books, I find, to my great surprise, looking back, that the connexion is perfectly clear.’
(a) Have you had a similar experience with any particular teaching you find in the bible?
"there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5)
There is a discussion going on at the Coffee Bible Club Blog concerning whether the Angel of YHWH in the OT is God the Son. It is at 166 comments and counting - I've never seen anything like it. I haven't had the time to get involved and I don't have firm enough opinions on it anyway.
But I do have a nagging question:
Can there be a mediator between God and humanity who is not human?
Further, can there be a mediator between God and sinful humanity, who does not share in the suffering which is the just punishment for our sin?
The letter to the Hebrews has been brought into the discussion on the blog, although I've only skim read how people have dealt with it. However it would seem to me that Hebrews says several things that are relevant (that I can think of off the top of my head):
The OT is characterised by a distance between God and humanity. We have to take at full seriousness the verses about people being unable to see God and live because of their sinfulness. Only in the NT did God come close. As Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:5 it is 'the man' Christ Jesus who is our mediator. That is why the most common places that the NT writers see Christ in the OT are in men - the priests, the kings, the nation.
I don't think the debate is really about whether the Israelites knew the Triune God or a Unitarian God, with the Angel of YHWH as a test case. I think the debate is really about mediation and revelation.
... sorry Glen. I perfectly understand if you want to shoot me now.
"The external Word - what is meant in the common but unfortunate formula "Word and sacrament" - should really be identified more appropriately as preached Word as sacrament and sacrament as Word"
(p.250, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation)
... I really like Oswald Bayer!
I hesitate to post on this. It is not something you should talk about lightly and without feeling the weight of what you are discussing. We are all aware of it and so usually when Christian's are asked about it they tend to be tentative in their response and emphasize how we don't know the fate of anyone, and it is not our place to judge. Instead we rightly emphasise that we know the one who judges and he is just and merciful and we want to leave it with him.
Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that the reason why we have become uncertain about this question is because we have forgotten two points of massive importance. You may want to disagree with the two points I make, but I think it is helpful at least to identify that our response to these two questions determine your answer to a question about the fate of the unevangelised.
The law is true knowledge of God, and Creation communicates this to us. It presents us with God as he is loving, kind, just and powerful. However, it just presents us with him, and tells us nothing of how we should relate to him - especially as we then look at ourselves. Because of this we create our own ways of relating to him. Our own 'gospels'. We may ignore him because we cannot imagine how we could relate to him. We may bring him close by worshipping created things. We may try and work our way to a place where we can approach him by good works or acts of contemplation. All of these work only by suppressing the knowledge of God that we have through Creation. They work by downplaying the demands of the law, or making them the 'gospel'. Either way we are left without excuse.
Because the distinction between law and Gospel has been forgotten in much contemporary Christianity, we think there is only one kind of knowledge of God. Because of this we merge or confuse law and Gospel and make them both communicated through creation. Therefore the hypothetical unevangelised man alone on an island in the Pacific has the same kind of knowledge as the well-taught Christian in England, just a different amount. In fact there is not just a quantitative difference between the knowledge of God, but a qualitative difference as well.
Classically, when considering the difference between general and special revelation we go to Calvin's Institutes. We would benefit from listening to Luther as well:
Everyone naturally has a general idea that there is a God [...] But someone may object: "If all people know God, why does Paul say that before the proclamation of the gospel the Galatians did not know God?" I reply that there is a twofold knowledge of God [duplex est cognitio Dei], general and particular. All people have the general knowledge, namely that God exists, that he has created heaven and earth, that he is righteous, that he punishes the wicked, etc. But people do not know what God proposes concerning us, what he wants to give and to do, so that he might deliver us from sin and death, and to save us - which is the proper and true knowledge of God [propria et vera est cognitio Dei]. Thus it can happen that someone's face may be familiar to me but I do not really know him, because I do not know his intentions.
(from 1535 Lectures on Galatians, in p.99, The Christian Theology Reader ed by A McGrath)
Constantly we are tempted to have the persons of the Trinity acting separately from one another. One way in which we do this is through a concept of a free-floating Spirit who acts apart from the Word - that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course all of creation is sustained by God's Word and the action of his Spirit. In that sense the Spirit does operate even where the Gospel is not preached but he does not indwell believers apart from it.
In what way, then, does the Holy Spirit come to us? How and in what way does he impart himself? The Spirit works faith in the human being inwardly, but never apart from means, never without the external "physical Word" [...]
Luther would formulate the central thesis for his understanding of the Holy Spirit as "The Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel." This means: although the Holy Spirit cannot be apprehended, he is not an incomprehensible fluidity, but comes in a clearly specific Word that can be heard [...]
If the Holy Spirit calls only "through the gospel," but the gospel is gospel only as it is distinguished from the law, then the distinction between law and gospel is decisive with respect to the teaching about the Holy Spirit, about pneumatology, as well. Thus the work of the Spirit is, first of all, to sharpen the law and to bring about God's judgment against sin; only then does the Spirit work through the second and final Word of God, the gospel, in that he forgives sin and creates faith [...]
Whoever agrees today with Luther's understanding of the Holy Spirit, according to which he binds himself to the external Word, and is in agreement with it, muct be ready for the hard task of a fundamental critique of modern subjectivism.
(pp.242-251, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation).
I'm constantly challenged at the moment by someone in our church who doesn't really buy the line that we can enjoy a trip to the cinema to the glory of God. He is more acutely aware than most that 'friendship with the world is enmity with God' and reminds me that we can often shape our understanding of what is sinful by what suits us.
I'm still thinking through how we rightly enjoy creation to the glory of God. One way that has been helpful to my thinking through the issues is to think about my brother.
My brother is an artist. Relationships people have with my brother and his work can fit into several categories:
1. They love my brother but don't care about his work.
These would tend to be my brother's non-arty friends. It is a good relationship, but it is not quite as good as it could be.
2. They love my brother's work but don't care about him.
These would be people who have never met my brother, but bought his art. The person who made the art is an irrelevance. They have a relationship with the art but not my brother.
3. They love my brother because of the work he produces.
These are fair-weather friends. They would think my brother is cool and interesting because of what he makes. They are constantly dropping hints that he could give them bits of his art. Not a good relationship.
4. They love my brother's work because it is made by him.
This would be my mother. Everything my brother produces is great, because it is made by him. She sees no value in the thing itself but only because it is made by her son. This intensely annoys my brother, because to him she may as well ignore the art because her reaction to it is irrelevant.
5. They love both my brother and his work relatively independently.
This is the best relationship you could have with my brother. It is hard to represent diagrammatically. This is what I think we should be seeking for in our relationship with Creation. We should love walking through the dales for what it is in itself - beautiful. However, it is difficult to imagine doing this without setting up an rival to God. The only way I can think we can avoid doing this is if we remember:
Nevertheless, I think I need to work through more of what it looks like to love both God and Creation, but in a way which gives God all the glory.
Any thoughts?
PS Apologies for the diagrams. They were done in haste.
In 'The Weight of Glory' CS Lewis states that:
The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things - the beauty, the memory of our own past - are good images of what we really desire ... they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune wee have not heard.(italics original)
I have two concerns about this.
Maybe I'm being too harsh on Lewis with my first point. I want to be able to say with the bible that the heavens declare the glory of God, but I don't want to use the word 'through' like Lewis does. How can you do this?
Bizarrely, after criticising him for having too 'high' a understanding of creation in one breadth, my second concern comes from him having too low a understanding of creation's goodness.
By making creation a mediator of God's beauty he actually turns it into an obstruction. It becomes instrumental and so disposable. He looks forward to a day when creation passes away and there is just us and God:
When all the suns and nebulae have passed away, each one of you will still be alive. Nature is only the image, the symbol...We are summoned to pass in through Nature, beyond her, into that splendour which she fitfully reflects.
In contrast I would like to say:
A bible study introducing the Holy Spirit. Specifically with the aim of showing up the connections with the historical Jesus and how we can receive him. Please feel free to give some suggestions for improvements.
MARK 1:4-11What does John say the difference between his baptism and Jesus' baptism is?4And so John came, baptising in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptised by him in the Jordan River. 6John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8I baptise you with water, but he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit."
9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptised by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
Peter speaking to a crowd in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus died, was raised from the dead and went to heaven:
22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
[...]
32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand 35until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." '
36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."
40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Once Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God what does he do?
> Pour out the promised Holy Spirit, which he received (again), on the disciples.
To receive the Spirit what did the hearers of Peter need to do?
> Repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins?
> Through that the promise must be believed. What is the appropriate response to a promise? Faith!
ROMANS 8:5-16
5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
What difference does living in accordance with the Spirit make?
> Desiring what the Spirit desires (v.5).1If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
What does a life in fellowship with the Spirit look like?
> Christ-like
> Humble to the extent of counting yourself nothing
> Selflessly serving others to the extent of dying
