Triperspectival application

Still listening to Tim Keller on applying Biblical texts. Keller draws out some helpful stuff from Vern Polythress on triperspectivalism in application:

Vern Poythress in [God-Centered Biblical Interpretation] takes John Frame's 3-perspectives of normative (prophetic). existential (priestly), and situational (kingly) and works this out for hermeneutics [...]

Each perspective is true in that it eventually comprises the whole, but each approach begins with a particular 'door' or aspect.

[1. 'Doctrinalist'] The 'normative' aspect I'll call "the gospel of Christ" - stresses objective, historic work of Christ that Jesus really came in time-space and history to accomplish all for us. It will talk much more about the real, historicity of Jesus life. death and resurrection...This view thinks that the problem addressed by Paul in Galatians was a doctrinal heresy.

[2. 'Pietist'] The 'existential' aspect I'll call "the gospel of sonship"- stresses our new identity in Christ as adopted children, liberated from the law. It will talk much of the power of the spirit to renew broken hearts and psyches...This view thinks that the problem addressed by Paul in Galatians was a pastoral one of Christians falling back into legalism.

[3. 'Cultural-transformationist'] The 'situational' aspect I'll call "the gospel of the kingdom" - stresses the reversal of values in the new creation. It will talk about healed community, cultural transformation, ministry of deed and justice... This view thinks that the problem addressed by Paul in Galatians was the lack of 'table fellowship' between Jew and Gentile.

We need all three perspectives, though each perspective is not simply a 'part' of the gospel. For example, the 'kingdom' perspective contains the other two. If God is king, then salvation must be by grace, for if we are saved by works, something else will be our Lord and Savior . Or, if we have a new identity in Christ by sheer grace. then we must not look down at anyone else, and self-justification is the basis of racism and injustice. If you go deep enough into any one perspective, you will find the other two.

(From the lecture notes here)

Turning scripture to prayer

You may be familiar with using the acronym ACTS (adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication). I like that, although I feel adoration and thanksgiving should merge. I also believe that prayer should be in response to the word of God, and that should shape our prayers. Although I often just ream off a large number of requests, it is better to listen to God first.

Martin Luther has a good four-stage structure to his prayers in response to Scripture. He says we should treat the Bible in a fourfold way:

1. A school book which we listen to - Meditate on what the Bible is teaching and instructing you.
2. A song book from which we praise God - Give thanks for what the passage teaches.
3. A penitential book which prompts our confession - Repent and ask for forgiveness for not responding rightly to what the passage has taught you.
4. A prayer book which helps us to know what to ask for - Make supplications for yourself and the whole world to

Although, he also says we should hold to this structure loosely and "if in the midst of such thoughts the Holy Spirit begins to preach in your heart with rich, enlightening thoughts, honor him by letting go of the written scheme" (p. 16, A Practical Way to Pray).

The plot to moral reasoning

In his excellent lectures on preaching, Tim Keller gives his basic outline for preaching to the heart as well as to behaviour. In fact, he describes it as the foundational outline for all the moral reasoning and argument that lies at the heart of application.

a. The Plot winds up: WHAT YOU MUST DO.

• "This is what you have to do! Here is what the text/narrative tells us that we must do or what we must be."

b. The Plot thickens: WHY YOU CAN'T DO IT.

• "But you can't do it! Here are all the reasons that you will never become like this just by trying very hard."

c. The Plot resolves: HOW HE DID IT.

• "But there's One who did. Perfectly. Wholly. Jesus the---. He has done this for us, in our place."

d. The Plot winds down: HOW, THROUGH HIM, YOU CAN DO IT.

• "Our failure to do it is due to our functional rejection of what he did. Remembering him frees our heart so we can change like this ..."

(From the lecture notes here)

We're all preachers, not least to our own hearts, so it is important to think how we apply the Bible to our hearts. This structure is biblical, Christ-centred and packed with grace where it matters. But it is important that it is also a story. This makes it interesting to hear because there's dramatic tension and it is effective because it also takes the Christian on a journey from death to life, law to Gospel and self to Christ. We all want to make that journey, and by starting with the command, and not Christ, you don't just preach the goal but how to get there.

That's why I love the distinction between law and Gospel. It is about a movement. It's not an exercise in chopping up scripture but a dynamic.

Extending the sanctuary

God created the cosmos to be his great temple in which he rested after his creative work. Nevertheless, his special revelatory presence does not fill the entire earth yet, since it was his intention that this goal be achieved by his human vice-regent[/priest], whom he installed in the temple sanctuary to extend the garden boundaries of God's presence worldwide [Gen 1:28]. Adam, of course disobeyed this mandate, so that humanity no longer enjoyed God's presence in the Garden, and the entire earth became infected with sin and idolatry in a way it had not been previously, even while yet in its still imperfected state.

Therefore, the statements about God's inability to dwell in any structure on earth not only refers to the Creator's transcendence but plausibly includes reference to the necessity for purification and re-creation before God's Shekinah presence, formerly restricted to heaven and the earthly holy of holies, can dwell universally throughout creation together with his multitudes of worshippers.

(p.138, Greg Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission)

This is a summary of a large part of the argument of Beale's book. Unfortunately the book is a classic example of a great thesis buried in poor writing and then insufficiently and unimaginatively explored. A very frustrating mixture. I would recommend it, but wish someone could write another book with the same thesis.

The most influential person in my life is me

"You are the most influential person in your own life. you talk to yourself more than anyone does. What are you saying to you about you?" (Paul Tripp)

So, what are you saying? Is it helping you grow? Is it true?

Also, just because it is true that you are the most influential person in your life that doesn't mean you have to blithely accept that.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Martin Luther develop things further.

Some thoughts on the canon

Whenever anyone challenges me about the church's role in choosing the canon I still come back to a quotation I read in my first few years of being a Christian:

"the church did not select and authorize the canon but recognized it and sat down under its authority. When a patient returns to a doctor and says, 'Yes, that medicine is exactly what I need', the patient does not authorize the medicine but recognizes its inherent authorization." (p. 207, Alec Motyer, Look to the Rock)

One reason why I think Motyer's point works, even if it could be refined, is because it does not separate the Bible's authority from its purpose. You cannot know the authority of scripture apart from its saving work in your life, and the early church didn't try.

But how did the early church know that the purpose of any books claiming to be the word of God should be salvation of sinners? They could, and to some extent did, think of it as a political tool, a guidebook to life etc instead. However, from creation onwards the church has experienced the word of God and has known that it is characterised by the creation of life. The word of God and God's saving activity have always been inseparable.

So when it came to deciding the canon the primary question asked of any book was does this book bring salvation? Questions about historical reliability and apostolic authority are also valid, but are correctly understood as part of this question. The church cares that they provide historically reliable access to Jesus of Nazareth because he is our Saviour, and we care that their authority derives from Jesus because only he has the authority to forgive our sins.

But how do we know if a book brings salvation? We know salvation by the Spirit who gives life and freedom (John 6:63; 2 Corinthians 3:17). In this sense the Spirit authenticates the Bible. Not by a little voice in the head saying "yes that's true" or "no that's a fake", but by the new life that accompanies it (cf. John 3:8). Paul appeals to the Galatians experience of the Spirit ("Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?", 3:2) not just to verify the sufficiency of faith but to verify the Gospel of Christ he preached and they heard (1:6-7). God's word, God's salvation and God's Spirit are all inseparable. Our salvation is hidden with Christ, but we have the down-payment of the Spirit, so if we have the Spirit we can know we have life as an inheritance waiting for us (cf. 1 Peter 1:4-5).

But finally, how do we know if we have the Spirit? Paul and John both agree on one answer to this:

"No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except in the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3)

"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" (1 John 4:2)

So to a degree, we can ask the question about the canon apart from our personal experience. We can ask, does the Bible confess Jesus Christ as Lord? Jesus thought the OT did (John 5:39) and I'm convinced all the NT does too. And if it does, when we can be sure that it is the Spirit-breathed, salvific word of God. But when I have come across non-canonical 'Gospels' I've been less convinced they confess the Jesus as Lord.

In Matthew and Luke I find that Jesus is confessed as the Lord who goes searching after lost sinners like a good shepherd (Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-7). In the Gospel of Thomas I find a Jesus confessed as the Lord who who also goes searching for a lost sheep, but that sheep also happens to be the largest sheep and is never identified with sinners (saying 107). That seems like a different Jesus, and a different Lord to me, and it brings no salvation for a lost sinner.

Why the Levites?

A little while back I wondered whether God approved of the Levite killing spree in Exodus 32. Jim Jordan has convinced me that God not only approved, but chose the tribe of Levi to be priests on the basis of that action. As Moses declares once they have completed their killing "Today you have been ordained for the service of the Lord" (32:29, 'service' being priestly language).

In Exodus 18 Jethro offers a sacrifice to God. In Exodus 24 the "young men of the people of Israel" are commanded to make sacrifice. Sharing in the food that belongs to God in the holy place was a priestly privilege (c.f. Lev 24:9), but in Exodus 24 God invites representatives from the whole people (Moses "Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel") up the mountain, his holy place, to eat and drink with him. But after Exodus 32, the God restricts such activities to the Levites, and this seems to be particularly tied to their willingness to take violent action.

That priests should be particularly violent may seem strange to us, but Phinehas later in Numbers 25 was certainly not afraid to draw the sword, and a significant part of the priest's job description was guard duty (Num 1:53; 3:6-38; 18:3-7).

It could even be argued that when God declares that he has "taken the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the people of Israel" (Num 8:18), indicates that before the Golden Calf it would have been the firstborn who would have been priests (the "young men" of Exodus 24:5?).

What is Exodus about?

I suspect when most of us think about the book of Exodus we think about the plagues, crossing of the sea and the Ten Commandments. The book of Exodus is a message of release from slavery, and of the giving of the law. But the structure of the book suggests a different focus.

The centre of the book is the arrival at Sinai and that is where the people remain for the rest of the book. As RWL Moberly comments, God's first message to Israel when they arrive at Sinai summarises the whole of the two-part structure to the book:

1. "You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself"
2. "Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (19:4-6)

The theme that over-arches these two halves is the presence of God with his people (David Clines). In the first half the focus is on the bringing of the people to the presence of God at Sinai. In the second half the focus is on the presence of God going with the people as they prepare leave Sinai for Canaan.

1. "brought you to myself"

The first half of the book is not primarily about the escape from Egypt, but the bringing of people to Mount Sinai and to God. Right at the beginning of the book Moses meets with God on Sinai and is told "when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain" (3:12). God's repeated demand to Pharaoh is that he "Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness" (7:16; cf. 7:16, 8:1, 20, 9:1, 13, 10:3).

These passages suggest that to be in the presence of God is to serve him. That is to worship him. And this is what we find both at Sinai and in the Tabernacle, when the people offer sacrifices as they draw near to the presence.

2. "make us gods who shall go before us"

However, the presence of God at Sinai presents a problem to the people of Israel. Firstly, God is distant and unapproachable in his dwelling at the top of his mountain. Secondly, the mountain is immovable and the people have somewhere else they need to be; i.e. Canaan. Every idolatry has a reason, and the Golden Calf finds its reason in their response to both of these problems. Firstly, God is made visible and accessible, and secondly, he can be taken with them on their journey. But God has another plan. The mountain will move with them.

3. "my presence will go with you"

By far the largest portion of the book of Exodus is devoted not to the action set-pieces, but to the instructions about, and construction of, the Tabernacle. It dominates all of chapters 25-40. We may be tempted to skip over this, yet the presence of God with his people in the Tabernacle is central to understanding the whole book (e.g. I was struck that Alec Motyer devotes only 25% of the pages of his commentary to chapters 25-40).

God's answer to the problem the people tried to solve with the Golden Calf was a "portable mountain" (Jim Jordan). As well as symbolising the whole of the cosmos and the Garden of Eden, the Tabernacle was also a mini mountain that could dwell in the midst of the camp and go with the people as they faced the daunting task of conquering Canaan.

At the foot of Mount Sinai Moses built an altar where the people served God (24:4), the similarly the Tabernacle had the bronze altar nearest the doorway. God set limits around Sinai to keep the people from coming too close (24:12), and similarly the Tabernacle was characterised by barriers to keep people out. Cloud and fire displayed God's presence as he led them through the wilderness and then surrounded the mountain, and then the book climaxes with the same cloud of God's presence settling on the Tabernacle (which usually would be full of the cloud of incense and fire of the altars/lamps). The book ends:

"Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Throughout all their journeys, whenever the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the people of Israel would set out. But if the cloud was not taken up, then they did not set out till the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the Lord was on the tabernacle by day, and fire was in it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel throughout all their journeys." (40:34-38)

This great dwelling of God with man only occurred because of the struggle of Moses with God in the last portion of the book to forgive the sin of the people. However, if we do not see the presence of God with his people as the great theme of Exodus this struggle may not make much sense to us.

After the Golden Calf incident God sends plagues on the people but then holds back from further destruction. He promises them that they will be given the land and that he will send an angel with them to accomplish this. But that kind of blessing is not enough for the people, or for Moses. The people mourn when they "heard this disastrous word" because they wanted God's presence with them even if they would still get the land with a mere angel. In response God agrees to think about it his decision. Moses then enters into negotiations in the neutral ground of the tent of meeting set up outside the camp, and doesn't give up until God promises to dwell in the midst of the people as they leave from Sinai.

I also don't want to be satisfied with blessings of God apart from the presence of God. But I want the passion of the book of Exodus to grow that hunger in my heart. Hopefully, it is obvious where we need to look to find the true and full satisfaction to that hunger.

What's on Tim Keller's ipod?

Do you remember that pointless bit of 'world news' a few years ago, when we were all informed what George Bush listened to on his ipod?

I listen to MP3s when I jog too, although I mainly listen to sermons and lectures, so it was interesting to hear Tim Keller say he does the same. Even if he jogs every day for 45min which puts me to shame.

He mentioned four preachers he particularly listened to, and in the spirit of the cult of Christian celebrity I thought I'd share:

• David Jackman
• Dick Lucas
• Martyn Lloyd-Jones
• John Stott

Yes, they're all British. Jackman is 67, Lucas and Stott are well into their 80s, and MLJ would be 110 if he was still alive. And yet Keller commented that these British pastors have been great models for preaching to a postmodern New York congregation because the British culture is closer to New York than the rest of the States.

What lessons should us Brits draw from that?

Where do you go from busyness?

So its past 1am and I'm pretty tired. Its been a busy few weeks and I've got a busy week ahead, so don't expect too much blogging. However, I've been reflecting recently on how we should respond to busyness and thought I'd blog my late night incoherent thoughts.

I've heard many churches preach that busyness in this life is an evil which Christ came to save us from. Yet in my experience there are few busier people than Christians. Why this paradox? Is it because busy Christians are Marthas seeking self-justification, or is it because the Gospel demands we pour ourself out in service of others?

I think it is good to be busy. My dad once commented that there is nothing sadder than someone with too much time on their hands. He works with quite a lot of elderly people, and the purposeless existence many of them live when retired and stripped of responsibility to employers and children is quite depressing. While I feel the pull of our leisure culture, ultimately it displays a society of people turned in on themselves. No hope and no joy - just temporary escape.

However, we soon realise that juggling lots of balls, means you drop them more often. And then there is the huge pile of balls that you cannot physically juggle. There are needs and opportunities everywhere you look, but your ability is so limited. Busyness then can be a great barometer of your faith, and sadly it often shows me up as a sinner; just as much as the command not to covet.

When busyness forces you to realise you've reached the end of yourself you have two options: you can pray more or you can pray less. Which to choose? Faced with the demand of busyness do I treat prayer as dead-time which can be reallocated to more productive uses, or desperately pray all the more realising the true depth of my inability and trusting in the mighty power of a Father who cares for me?

Please pray for my prayers.

Incidentally, if you want a phrase to chew over at length try Hebrews 4:11: "strive to enter that rest". And I've said it before, but Tim Chester's book on Busyness should be read by everybody.

The Trinity and prayer - part 1 - To the Father...

I'm trying to write a little piece on the difference the doctrine of the Trinity makes to our prayers. This is a rough draft of part one. Part two will look at "through the Son", and part three on "by the Spirit". Any feedback would be gratefully received, whether it is to pick up on heresy, pastoral insensitivity, or even poor writing quality.

"through Christ we have access in one Spirit to the Father" (Ephesians 2:18)

If we don't know who, or what, we are talking to then there is little reason for us to pray. We may pray when things get particularly tough and we think that anything is worth a try, but its always going to feel like a gamble. We would be like the Athenians in Acts 17 who pray to an "unknown god". It wouldn't surprise us that the unknown god never got to have the biggest temple in Athens because worshippers could never love and trust a god.

But Christians are privileged to actually know who God is. We may never have seen God, but Jesus Christ "has made him known" to us (John 1:18). Because of Jesus we know God is not a impersonal force, or the whole material universe, or one of many competing deities. Instead God is "our Father", and that person is the God we are told by Jesus to pray to.

We can be tempted to think that the title "Father" is just a description of God - i.e. that because he acts like a father towards us we call him "our Father". But God has been God the Father from all eternity. Fundamentally, God is not God the Father, because he acts like a father towards us, but because that is who he actually is. He has always been God the Father because he has always had a Son, Jesus Christ. And that is important because it means that when we say that we pray to God the Father we are not saying that we pray to a god who is like a father just like those of many other religions do. Instead it means we are praying to a particular person, to the exclusion of all others. As Paul so often says, we pray to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". There is only one god, who is Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Just like there is only one Father of Dave Kirkman. By addressing "our Father" in prayer, we don't just know the character of the God we pray to, but we know exactly who it is that we are talking about.

That we pray to "our Father" should shape our prayers in a number of ways. Firstly, we should pray in community because we are told to pray to "our Father". When alone, we should remember it is not just about me before God, but we should pray as part of the church. The Lord's prayer is full of the plural ("our", "us", "we") because we are not saved as individuals but as part of a whole body. We pray as the community and family that we are, concerned for each other's welfare and encouraged by the faith of our brothers and sisters praying with us.

Secondly, we should pray knowing that we have a Father who knows our needs and longs to do us good. After recounting Jesus' teaching of the Lord's prayer Matthew reminds us that God looks after the lilies and the birds and tells us that we have no reason to be anxious about anything because our Father knows all that we need. And after the Lord's prayer in Luke, we are told that even evil people like us give good things to our children so we can be confident that God will give us the Holy Spirit if we ask him. But God does not shower gifts on his children from afar, our relationship is one of intimacy so that we can call him Abba, Father, and approach him without fear.

Thirdly, we should pray respectfully. Fathers in the ancient world were august figures who demanded respect from their children. This should particularly be our attitude towards God because he is not only "our Father", but also "in heaven". He is creator and we are his creatures, but even that should encourage us to pray. Children ask their parents for things not just because they know they love them, but because they know that they can do what they cannot. As a child I asked my parents for bike not only because I thought they loved me enough to buy me one, but because I had no money and they did.

Seeing only sin

Dietrich Bonhoeffer bluntly states that:

the Lord will judge us each according to our works without partiality. For each person's works will become apparent, and to each the Lord will give "recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Cor 5:10; Rom 2:6ff; Matt 16:27). Whatever has not already received its judgment here on earth will not remain hidden on judgment day, but must come to light.

(p. 277, Discipleship)

The editor's footnotes also quote the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46) as further support.

[But a] surprising point arises from the fact that in Jesus' story the sheep think they are goats and the goats are sure they are sheep. "When did we see you naked, and not clothe you?" the latter boast. To these goats, who insist on following the law (and think they get perfect marks in so doing), the king replies, "You missed one! As often as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." Try living by the law, and you will be toast. On the contrary, the poor befuddled sheep [...] cannot seem to see their gifts and works at all. "When did we see you naked, etc., and clothe you?" The king answers, "I remember one time." Rather like those poor split-brained disciples of the Sermon on the Mount, whose right hand did not know what the left was doing, these people's good works sneak up on them and remain hidden from to them (but not necessarily to others) their whole life long. The only thing Christians truly sense is their desperate need for a Savior, the Good Shepherd, who seeks the lost.

(italics original, p. 93, Timothy Wengert, A Formula for Parish Practice)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer doesn't disagree. We should not respond to the doctrine of judgement by works by looking at our achievements and trusting in them.

The saints themselves are unaware of the fruit of sanctification they bear. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. If they become curious to know something in this matter, if they decide to engage in self-contemplation, then they would have already torn themselves away from the root and their time of bearing fruit would have passed [...] In their own lives, only the saints see strife, hardship, weakness and sin. And the more maturity they gain in the state of sanctification, the more they recognize themselves as being overcome, as those who are dying according to the flesh.

(p. 266f, Discipleship)

As I once heard Dick Lucas preach on Romans 8: the Spirit witnesses to our adoption by making us aware of the constant presence of the battle with our old nature.

But don't you know people just like that? I do. People who cheerfully give and give, but have no awareness of the good works they are doing. They're just being normal in their own eyes, or perhaps not even doing enough. But sometimes other people see how exceptional the giving is, and give thanks for them.

The temporary nature of the law-gospel antithesis

"the antithesis between law and gospel is not an end in itself. It is not a theological ultimate. Rather, that antithesis enters not by virtue of creation but as the consequence of sin, and the gospel functions for its overcoming. The gospel is to the end of removing an absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer. How so? Briefly, apart from the gospel and outside of Christ the law is my enemy and condemns me. Why? Because God is my enemy and condemns me. But with the gospel and in Christ, united to him by faith, the law is no longer my enemy but my friend. Why? Because now God is no longer my enemy but my friend, and the law, his will, the law in its moral core, as reflective of his character and of concerns eternally inherent in his own person and so of what pleases him, is now my friendly guide for life in fellowship with God"

(italics original, p. 103, Richard Gaffin, By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation)

I like that, although I don't fully agree. I think that he is right that the purpose of the second use of the law is to drive us to the gospel, which enables us to return to the law and use it in its third use. But for the Christian who is both the old man and the new man, we need to use it both as enemy and friend.

Compare Timothy Wengert commenting on Article six of the Formula of Concord:

faith in Christ truly makes all things new, even our relation to the law and works. To be sure, there are "works of the law" (par. 5). There are threats and coercion: "Do this or else!" The unbeliever and our own flesh must be forced [...]

But think how our of place this coercion sounds in the language of love (par. 6). If the beloved says, "Kiss me!" what kind of answer is "Do I have to?"

[...] To be sure the law remains the law (par. 7). The Ten Commandments contain enough for us to do to last a lifetime. However, when the law hits the old creature - whether in the unrepentant or in the flesh of the believer - it can only threaten and coerce. But when the believer, as God's new creature of faith, hears the law, all threats drop away, and there remains a willingness that comes not from ourselves (we cannot make ourselves willing), but from God. Then we hear only the voice of the beloved, and there is no coercion, only faith and love.

(p.99, A Formula for Parish Practice)

Hope for the future in Hebrews

The author of Hebrews explains that "God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking" to Jesus and, in him, to humanity (2:5).

This captures much of what Hebrews is about. It is not a about incorporeal reality in contrast to a corporeal sub-reality. Instead it is profoundly eschatological. It is a book about our future ("the world to come") which has already happened in Christ. "At present" we do not see this future world except when we look to Jesus where it is encapsulated (2:8-9).

Hebrews regularly exhorts its readers to "hope" that endures through present difficulties "to the end". This involves "patience" and "waiting" but we are not to be "sluggish", but should "run" towards the eschaton.

Jesus is our "forerunner" who has entered the future before us. The OT temple is not modelled on heavenly realities only in the sense that it is modelled on an incorporeal dimension to reality. The Holy of Holies is symbolic of the future age which is "not yet opened" (9:8), and the Holy place "is symbolic for the present age" (9:9). Indeed the whole law is a "a shadow of the good things to come" (10:1).

Christ "entered once for all into the holy places [plural]" (9:12) to secure an "eternal redemption" (9:12; cf. 9:15).

We are waiting now for him to come a "second time" (9:28), just as he is "waiting [...] until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet" (10:13). The "Day" is "drawing near" (10:25) so we should encourage each other to hold firm and do good for "a little while" longer (10:37). Because "here [that is, in our present age] we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come".

The Theme of the Pentateuch by David Clines

I've just read David Clines's influential work, The Theme of the Pentateuch (1978). It is well worth the read. Short, well written and very persuasive it has a substantial and important point to prove, and you can see why it had the impact it did.

Overview of the Pentatuach

He summarises his proposal (p.29) as:

The theme of the Pentateuch is the partial fulfilment - which implies the partial non-fulfilment - of the promise to or blessing of the patriarchs. The promise or blessing is both the divine initiative in a world where human initiatives always lead to disaster and a re-affirmation of the primal divine intentions for man. The promise has three elements: posterity, divine-human relationship, and land. The posterity element of the promise is dominant in Genesis 12-50, the relationship element in Exodus and Leviticus, and the land-element in Numbers and Deuteronomy.

On Genesis 1-11 he concludes that in isolation it could be considered to have one of two themes: "(a) Mankind tends to destroy what God has made good", whether God responds in judgement or grace sin continues inextricably to spread; or "(b) No matter how drastic man's sin becomes, destroying what God has made good and bringing the world to the brink of uncreation, God's grace never fails to deliver man from the consequences of his sin" (p.76). However, he concludes that the genealogy of Abram makes it impossible to isolate Genesis 1-11 from the rest of the Pentatuach and read in the light of the whole "The patriarchal (or, Pentatuachal) narratives can then function as the "mitigation" element of the Babel story, and what is more, the divine promise to the patriarchs then demands to be read in conjunction with Genesis 1 - as a re-affirmation of the divine intentions for man" (p.78)

Clines concludes by reflecting on the theological function of the Pentatuach and argues that it functions as both story and promise.

Pentatuach as Story

As story it:

1. "highlights the freedom of action enjoyed by men and gods"
2. does not make a "distinction between the real and the unreal. Everything that happens really happens (whether we believe it or not)"
3. "moves through time" but doesn't reach a conclusion instead it "presses beyond itself to a goal that lies still in the future even when its story is over"
4. "is often played out in spatial as well as temporal terms".

Like many stories he explains that the Pentatuach is a travel story where "everyone seems constantly on the move". But it is a travel story that seems to fit with so many other travel stories that spring "from the desire of the unsettled to be settled, and of the settled to be unsettled". We all desire "to be running away and [at the same time] to be heading towards".

The Pentatuach reveals this same tension. In one sense it is a "a homecoming, tortuous and wearisome and rich in experience [to] the land of their fathers (Gen. 48:21; cf. 31:3), the land of the Hebrews (Gen. 40:15)." But at the same time it "is a land that has never really been their own. 'Land of the fathers' it may be called once or twice, but overwhelming it is 'the land of the Canaanites'...which at the return will have to be fought for as if it had never been Israel's at all"

However, in another sense it is "a laborious search for a new home". "But Israel...tells its primal travel story not as a tale of an abandonment of home under the divine impulse to search out a new home... but as the story of an escape from a home that was not a home in order to make for a home that had never been a home. Israel were 'sojourners', and so truly homeless.. They are unsettled in pursuit of the unobtained."

But, Clines asks, "Who wants, in short to view one's own life as neither moving towards a comfortable homecoming nor moving out towards heroic adventure?" "The Pentateuch offers us an unattractive option for our self-understanding... where 'you never reach the promised land; you only march towards it'".

Pentatuach as Promise

As promise it:

1. "binds man to the future";
2. "is more than hope" because it is "the word of the God of the fathers";
3. "indicates that the expected future does not have to develop within the framework of the possibilities inherent in the present, but arises from that which is possible to the God of the promise";
4. "creates a sense for history [because] it binds him to the past"
5. "speaks of what is not now but is only yet to be, the interval between the promise and its redemption is one of tension"
6. will not be exhausted in its fulfilment "because the God of the promises is greater than any fulfilment that cannot be expected" instead "there always remains an overspill

Clines, like the Pentatuach, does not tell us the end of the story, but leaves us there looking forward in anticipation. Thank God, that though we are in still in the midst of the same story longing for the fulfilment of the same promise in us, the future has already been revealed in Christ.

Struggling with the already/not-yet

Does anyone else have trouble explaining already/not-yet?

I don't know why I know so many people who doubt their salvation, but one thing they all have in common is that they don't accept theological jargon without questioning what that really means. I got pulled apart on 'already/not-yet' recently.

When I talk about already/not-yet I think usually end up doing away with the tension and either saying:

• Its already fully but not yet revealed.
• Its already partly but not yet completed.
• Its not already at all, although we say it is (as some kind of legal-fiction) because it is certain that in the not yet it will be really true.

One ambition for 2010 is to tighten up my understanding on this. Any thoughts on books, bible verses, illustrations, etc which would help would be gratefully received.

Tom Smail on the Trinity at Easter

Listening to: Seth Lakeman: Freedom Fields

Tom Smail has three theses about the Trinity and the Resurrection of Jesus:

1. "it is the Father who is both the initiating source and the ultimate goal of all that happens in relation to the raising of the Son and the sending of the Spirit. It is from the Father that it all starts and it is to the Father that it is all to return."

"The resurrection is seen [in 1 Pet 1:3] as the distinctive personal act of God the Father, his justifying vindication of Jesus in the face of his crucifiers... Jesus rises because he has been raised up by his Father, he acts because he has first been acted upon by God. He is the resurrection and the life (John 11:25), not in and by himself but because he has received this from the Father.

What is true of his resurrection is also true of his exaltation. He does not exalt himself - that would be against his whole character - it is his Father who exalts him to his own right hand.... his exaltation remains the distinctive personal act of God the Father, 'God, exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name' (Phil 2:9). The authority in heaven and on earth that has been given to him (Matt 28:18) is to be exercised in a way that glorifies and serves the purposes of the Father who gave it (Phil 2:11). In the end indeed, also according to Paul, that kingly authority has to be surrendered back to the Father who gave it, so that God may be all in all (1 Cor 1:24-28)....

The Holy Spirit did not come on his own, he was poured out by Jesus after and as a result of his resurrection and his exaltation... Yet even Jesus is not the ultimate origin of the newly poured out Spirit. He gives him only because he has first received him from the Father.

2. "the integrated Easter event that proclaims the primacy of the Father equally clearly proclaims what we may call the derived deity of the Son."

When the Father raises his Son from the dead to his own throne, he is telling us something not just about himself, but about that son, namely that he belongs not just with us on the human side of reality, but with God himself on the divine side of reality.... 'What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions?' (Eph 4:9). His exaltation to God is seen to imply that his work and his person have their eternal origination in God's own life...

All this, however, is said on the clear assumption that it does not threaten the primacy of the Father. The Son is Son because on the one hand he is all that the Father is, he is of the very stuff of the Father's deity, but on the other hand all he has he owes not to himself but to the Father (John 5:19)...

The risen son of God shows himself to be not only our brother, but God's eternal Son, who is to us and does for us what only God can do. Yet at the same time he is to be differentiated from God the Father, as the one who is sent is to be differentiated from the one who sends him, the one who obeys from the one whom he obeys, the one who is raised from the one who raised him.

3. "the integrated Easter event that reveals the primacy of the Father and the derived deity of the Son, also reveals the mutual interdependence of the Son and the Holy Spirit"

"On the one hand it is through the activity of the Spirit that Jesus is raised, and on the other hand it is through the risen Jesus that the Spirit is sent to the church at Pentecost...

Acts 2:33, '[Jesus]...has poured out what you now see and hear', and John 16:7, 'Unless I go away the Counsellor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.' For Paul also the dependence of the work of the Spirit upon the work of Christ is so close that at some points... he seems to identify the one with the other... the Holy Spirit does nothing of his own that is apart from or beyond what Christ has done. He simply takes what is in Christ and so works in us that it becomes ours also...

[on the other hand] the Father raises the Son from the dead through the activity of the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 6:14; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18). I that is so, then it is the son who is dependent upon the Spirit in his reception of resurrection life from the Father, just as he was dependent upon the Spirit for his human birth from Mary (Luke 1:35)...

The two-sided mutuality of that relationship is classically expressed in the words of John the Baptist in John 1:33, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptise with the holy Spirit.' At his baptism Jesus receives the Spirit and all that he brings from the Father for his own work; at Pentecost he sends that same Spirit from the Father to empower us in our work for him.

All quotes from pp. 63-78, Thomas A. Smail, "The Holy Trinity and the Resurrection of Jesus" in ed Andrew Walker Different Gospels: Christian Orthodoxy and Modern Theologies. Sorry for the extended quotations, but I thought it was all excellent stuff.

Christ's descent into hell

Listening to: Sibelius: Symphony No.5

"He descended into hell" (or "He descended to the dead") is an article of the creed that most people I know don't know what to do with. As a result some people just brush it off as nonsense and further proof that we shouldn't pay too much attention to the ecumenical creeds.

I think we ought to give our forerunners the benefit of the doubt whenever we can, but I'm not sure what to do with it myself.

The writers of the Lutheran Formula of Concord, saw two broad categories of interpretation, and because argument between the two were getting quite heated they judged that "there should be no dispute over this issue but it should be believed and taught on the simplest level". They explained that people disputed "whether this article of faith belongs to the suffering of Christ or to his glorious victory and triumph." I must confess that I was only aware of it belonging in some form to Christ's suffering.

1. Belonging to the suffering of Christ

John Calvin argues that the phrase refers to the depths of the suffering that Jesus suffered on the cross for us:

"subjected to condemnation, he undertook and paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the pains of death could not hold him. Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God." (Institutes 2.16.10)

2. Belonging to the victory of Christ

Luther read the article more in connection with Christ's resurrection than his death:

"The customary way of depicting how Christ descended into hell on church walls represents him with a cape and with banners in his hand as he makes his descent and stalks and assaults the devil, as he storms hell and rescues his own people from it. The children's play presented at Easter depicts it in a similar way. It seems better to me that you depict, act out, sing, and recite the story in a very simple way and let it remain at that and not concern yourself with sublime and precise ideas about how it actually took place. for it did not happen in a physical manner, since he remained three days in the grave." (p. 159, cited in Timothy J. Wengert, A Formula For Parish Practice)

Did Moses let his anger get out of control?

'The Lord said to Moses, "Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke."' (Exodus 34:1)

The first set of tablets were 100% made by God. The second time round Moses contributes. Why?

John Calvin believes it is to serve as a reminder to Israel of their sin, so that "the ignominy of their crime was not altogether effaced". Another alternative is floated by Peter Enns who says it "may indicate God's displeasure with [Moses] at having smashed them" (p. 584, Exodus (NIVAC)).

I'm not sure, and would welcome any suggestions, but find the idea that God did not approve of Moses's actions on finding the golden calf intriguing. In Exodus 32 there are the following facts to consider:

• God's is angry with Israel's sin and warns Moses, "my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them"
• Moses implores God "Turn from your burning anger", and God does so.
• Moses comes down and his "anger burned hot, and he threw the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain".
• Moses calls together some Levites and "he said to them, 'Thus says the Lord God of Israel, "Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbour."'" Throughout Moses emphasises that they are doing the LORD's work, and yet the narrator says "the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses."

All in all, the actions of Moses are some of the most brutal in the OT, not very discerning (Aaron suffers no punishment, and the commands to the Levites seem to encourage undiscerning punishment), not specifically commanded by God, and seem to have been done in the heat of the moment.

Nevertheless, God himself offers no opinion on Moses's actions, either positive or negative. When Moses meets God again, God has decided to send a plague on Israel because of their sin, although he sticks to his promise not to destroy them.

There seem to be arguments either way.

Bitter water

When Moses came down the mountain and finds the Golden Calf, he burns it and grinds it up and then scatters it into the water supply of the people so that the people of Israel have no choice but to drink it (Exodus 32:20).

In a way he is reversing the miracle of God at Marah, when the bitter water was made sweet (Exodus 15:22-25).

Peter Enns also notes that there may be a connection with Numbers 5:12-31 which "describes an elaborate ceremony whereby a woman suspected of adultery is made to drink a mixture of water and dust from the tabernacle in order to determine her guilt or innocence [...] it may be that the guilty parties [the 3,000 killed by the Levites] are exposed by the drinking ceremony, thus enabling the Levites know whom to kill" (p.575, Exodus (NIVAC))

Upstairs/downstairs

I wrote some notes on Exodus 19-40. I was having trouble keeping track of all the comings and goings that Moses had meeting God on Sinai. Reading it with this focus, you get the feeling of shuttle diplomacy. The mediating role of Moses is very clear, emphasising the holiness of God. Which makes the final descent from the mountain by God himself all the more amazing.

• 19:3 ↑ Moses goes up
• 19:3-6 Moses given message (reminder what God has done, exhortation to obey, promise of special place of people)
• 19:7 ↓ Moses goes down and reports to people
• 19:8 People respond (express desire to obey)
• 19:8 ↑ Moses goes up and reports to God
• 19:9 Moses given message (God is coming in cloud)
• 19:9 Moses reports to people
• 19:10-13 Moses given message (Preparation of people for God's visit)
• 19:14-15 ↓ Moses goes down and reports to people
• 19:16-20 ↓ God comes down to top of mountain
• 19:20 ↑ Moses goes up
• 19:21-24 Moses given message (for people to keep their distance)
• 19:25 ↓ Moses goes down and reports to people
• 20:1-17 God speaks the 10 commandments to his people directly
• 20:18-19 People respond (in fear, ask Moses to mediate)
• 20:21 ↑ Moses goes up
• 20:22-24:2 Moses given message (book of the covenant: exposition of 10 commandments, festivals & Sabbath, promise of conquest)
• 24:3 ↓ Moses goes down and reports to the people
• 24:3 People respond (express desire to obey)
• 24:9 ↑ Moses goes up (with others)
• 24:11 Covenant meal
• 24:13 ↑ Moses goes up further with Joshua
• 24:15-18 ↑ Moses goes up further alone and remains 40 days/nights
• 25:1-31:18 Moses given more instructions (all about tabernacle except ending with reminder about Sabbath)
• 32:7-14 God threatens to destroy Israel because of the golden calf, but Moses persuades God not to.
• 32:15-30 ↓ Moses goes down, breaks tablets, kills people
• 32:31 ↑ Moses goes up
• 32:31-33:3 Moses offers himself as substitute, God rejects this and says he will send a plague then will bring them to Canaan but will not go with them
• 33:4 ↓ Moses goes down (?) and reports to people
• 33:4-6 People respond (in mourning)
• 33:7-34:3 Moses meets God in the tent of meeting (asks that God will go with Israel, and that he will see God's glory)
• 34:4 ↑ Moses goes up
• 34:5-28 Moses given message (sees God's glory, promise of conquest, festivals and Sabbath)
• 34:29 ↓ Moses goes down
• 34:31-36:1 Moses delivers message
• 36:2-40:33 Tabernacle built
• 40:34-38 ↓ God comes down to the tabernacle and dwells with his people

Personal from beginning to end

John Frame points out that for most people today ultimate reality is impersonal. Most people believe that the personal came out of the impersonal and will return to impersonality. That is the story of our culture tells. Consequently science, which deals in the impersonal and excludes the personal from its discourse, has taken Theology's old crown as "Queen of the Sciences".

The Bible says that before time there was the personal God who created all that is personal and impersonal. Personal communion is also the goal and end of Creation according to the Bible.

I wonder, does this have any implications for our understanding of Genesis 1?

Reformulating the question of theodicy

1. Theodicy is not the attempt to fit the God of the Bible to a 'God' we already know. The problem of evil is the problem of how the God of the Bible is consistent.

'Today many of the skeptics I talk to say, as I once did, they can't believe in the God of the Bible, who punishes and judges people, because they "believe in a God of love." I now ask, what makes them think God is Love? Can they look at life in the world today and say, "This proves that the God of the world is a God of love"? Can they look at history and say, "This shows that the God of history is a God of love"? Can they look at the religious texts of the world and conclude that God is a God of love? By no means is that the dominant, ruling attribute of God as understood in any of the major faiths. I must conclude that the source of the idea that God is Love is the Bible itself. And the Bible tells us that the God of love is a God of judgment who will put all things in the world to rights in the end.'

(pp. 82f, Tim Keller, The Reason for God)

2. Theodicy is not the attempt to understand how God is consistent according to reason, but how he is consistent according to himself. The measure of consistency is not logical coherence (what does that prove anyway?), but the revelation of God in the Gospel as the God of love (that proves we have hope, God is true, Christ is Lord, etc).

Theodicy is not, as Leibniz thought, to be brought before the forum of reason, which can understand and judge, so that one can dispute or reflect about God; as Job experienced it, it is much more about a dispute with God - summoning God against God (Job 16;19); one appeals to God against God.

(p. 213, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology)

3. Christ engaged in theodicy long before Leibniz. He cried "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" appealing to God against God. Three days later he was answered not with an argument, but with his resurrection. It was a revelation of God himself, and like all God's revelations it was an act. It was an act of love and an act of power, showing God as both loving and almighty.

The question of theodicy should not be avoided by Christians, but it should be reformulated into the model provided by Jesus. It is Biblical and Christian to wrestle with God, to cry out against evil and not to accept it passively. Like Christ we might have to wait for the revelation of God we are want, but "if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him".

Resolving the paradoxes

I fear sometimes I love the paradoxes of the Christian life too much. I tend to see both sides of an argument and what is lost if you just only said one thing to the neglect of the other. I see problems when we try and resolve things too quickly and don't let two seemingly opposing statements stand at full strength. But I must remember that things will not always be so paradoxical. Most, if not all the paradoxes, may be resolved in eternity. Standing between the ages, there is inevitably going to be a tension.

Corollary or contradiction? God's love and anger

Listening to: Radiohead: The Bends

[Rather hasty and unrefined thoughts that I was decided to put down prematurely because of a discussion in comments to a post of Dave Bish]

We can drift into a simplistic dualism when thinking of God's wrath and love. God's anger and God's love can be seen as implacable enemies never to be reconciled, and the cross can be seen as the place where God's love is shown to be stronger. People then seem to drift into either seeing either:

• God the Father as the angry one, and God the Son as the loving one;
• The devil as angry (god?), and God as love; or
• God as schizophrenic.

Against this we can say that God gets angry because he cares, not despite caring. He punishes us to bring us to repentance, as a father disciplines his children. Or, he hates all that is destructive and acts to protect his creation, as an artist won't stand by and see his painting be destroyed.

We remember that God is love from all eternity, but God's anger is a recent response of this love to the invasion of sin. Perhaps we could describe God's anger as an 'aspect' of his love.

But I think that perspective can lead to problems too. Anger and sadness with God's acts of punishment are disallowed, and God's love becomes distasteful.

I think the Bible offers a more complex and paradoxical picture of the relationship between God's anger and love than we often allow. We either subsume anger into love, losing both. Or oppose them so completely that God is robbed of his sovereignty and we are robbed of our hope of final victory. I think this paradoxical picture can be seen when considering three different ways in which God acts in anger at sin:

1. People

• Habakkuk complains to God about the sin of Israel, and cries to God for justice. God responds by explaining that he will use the Chaldeans as a tool to punish the people.
• Understandably this doesn't satisfy Habakkuk, but neither does it satisfy God. He promises to bring the agents of his punishment to an end too.

2. The devil

• The devil is depicted in chapter 1 of Job as if he is a servant of God, even if their relationship does not seem amicable. But the bible is clear that the power of the devil is derived from God. He is called 'Satan' ('the Accuser), because he accuses, appealing to God's justice. As Henri Blocher says "the weapon in the devil's hand is God's own law" (p. 139, cited in PFOT).
• At the same time Christ's victory over the devil is fundamental to the Gospel. From the Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 20 we are promised that he will be crushed, imprisoned, and thrown into the lake of fire.

3. Death

• In Genesis it is clear that death is God's active response of punishing human sin. In the NT there is hope that death is essential to our process of being freed from this body of sin, to new life. It is clearly from God, and for believers a 'good' thing.
• But despite all that "the last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor 15:26).

Asymmetrical paradox

We should notice though that the paradox is not equally weighted. It remains a paradox, but God stands asymetrically behind the two sides. God's anger is always done through tools:

• God uses other people to punish, but when he loves he does himself in sending his only Son.
• God uses Satan as an agent of his wrath, but he restores us himself.
• In God there isn't death, but pulsating life (John 1:4)

Wrestling with God

This is not an impractical thing to wonder about. If we want to escape punishment we have to believe that it is under God's control, but we also have to believe that he has acted, and is acting, to save us from it.

We want to protect every part of the truth that "one appeals to God against God" (p. 213, Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology).