Paul's boasting before the judgment seat of Christ

Paul tells asks the Thessalonians "what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?" (1 Thessalonians 2:19).

Similarly he finds the Philippians his "joy and crown" too (Philippians 4:1). But on Judgement Day Paul will even boast about the Corinthian church (2 Corinthians 1:14), for all their problems.

When he says that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Corinthians 5:10), I think the context demands we see "what he has done" as primarily the results of his missionary work. If that is the case it is striking how 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 parallels Philippians 3:20-4:1. In both Paul looks forward to Christ's second coming, bemoans his current mortal body, but anticipates receiving a new resurrection body, and finally looks forward to boasting in the churches he has planted.

The Great Commission of Cyrus

The last verse of the Hebrew Bible is remarkably similar to the end of the Gospel of Matthew:

"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him. Let him go up'" (2 Chronicles 36:23)

"Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.'" (Matthew 28-18-20)

Both explain that they have been given kingly authority (by God) over the whole earth. Both commission a group of people to leave their homes to build a temple; in one case the Second Jerusalem Temple, in the other the temple of the church. Both promise that God will go with them; the Jews by "the LORD", the Apostles by Jesus.

(Once again, credit to Greg Beale.)

Jesus as the Second Adam in Colossians 1

In Colossians 1 Jesus is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation...the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead" (vv.15-18).

He images God, just as Adam did. He is the firstborn of creation, like Adam was. He is the head of a family, just as Adam was. His family will multiply and increase to cover the whole earth too, and according to verses 4-5 this happens as the gospel spreads over the whole earth and the church grows in numbers, good works and knowledge ( "the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing", cf. v.10).

Lines could be drawn to Acts 6:7; 12:23; 19:20 where the word of God increases, Romans 6, the Great Commission, and all the 'new Adam' figures in the OT who also receive their own mandate/promise of increase (i.e. Noah, Abraham, etc - Gen 9:1, 6-7; 12:2; 17:2,6,8; 22:17-18; 26:34,24; 28:3-4; 35:11-12; 47:27; Ex 1:7; Lev 26:9; Ps 107:38; Is 51:2; Jer 3:16; 23:3; Ezek 36:10-11, 29-30)... anything else?

All credit to Greg Beale.

Happy Easter!

It's Sunday today!

The first Christians neither lived nor thought in terms of a [church] year; they lived in terms of a week and they thought of the work of redemption in terms of a week. In this way concentration on the cross and the resurrection was even more marked than it has ever since succeeded in being. Where the Early Church made a new beginning from the point of view of the calendar was the keeping of Sunday, the first day of the week, the day following the Sabbath. Sunday was a day of gladness, because Christ rose at dawn on that day, the first working day of the Jewish week (Mark 16.1 f.). Every week the earliest Christian congregations met for an Easter festival. Continually, with the interval of only a few days, Easter returned anew

[...but,] in the faith of the Early Church the resurrection is linked with the cross and with death. Therefore the suffering of Christ was given a place in the weekday and the Christian community early in its history came to regard Wednesday and Friday as two 'station days' in his suffering. Wednesday was the day of the betrayal, Friday the day of the death. Accordingly, the Didache and Hermas (beginning of the second century) speak of the keeping of these two days. In this way the whole week is devoted to Christ's death and resurrection. Station days are the feast of the cross, Sunday is the feast of the resurrection. On station days the rule was to bow down and bend the knee, on Sunday to stand up and look towards heaven, in free and erect position, singing praise.

pp. 192-193, The Living Word, Gustaf Wingren)

If weekdays are work in the world for most Christians, and Sunday is when we gather together and rest, then that I think that says something about the posture we ought to have as we engage with the world and do our work - i.e. it should be self-sacrificial.

Some theological stuff I've recently found on the net

Audio/video

• A series of short youtube videos by St John's Nottingham. Little introductions to theologians, subjects in Biblical Studies etc. I enjoyed those on Pannenberg and von Balthasar as I didn't know anything about them. (HT Glen.)
• Also involving Tom Wright was the 19th Annual Wheaton Theology Conference devoted to discussing his work. Some excellent lectures (MP3/video). I thought Richard Hays was the highlight. It was my first big engagement with Wright for a while. Frankly I had forgotten how sharp and articulate he is. He is always encouraging you to rethink everything. I came away with respect renewed.
• Lectures and sermons delivered at Moore College, Sydney. Includes Wright again. Also Helmut Thielicke, Henri Blocher, FF Bruce, PT O'Brien and Barry Webb. (HT Chris.)
• Edmund Clowney lectures and sermons.
• Francis Schaeffer lectures and sermons.

Articles

• Archives of the mainline Lutheran journal Word & World. Includes articles by Walter Brueggemann, Gerhard Forde, Terence Fretheim, David Lose, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Gordon Wenham and others. I've only read the ones by David Lotz and Gustaf Wingren.
• Archives from Bulletin for Biblical Research.
• Archives of the Tyndale Bulletin.

I increasingly love books. Articles and MP3s are great - but they are only ever tasters. But as I only stumbled across these recently I thought other's may be interested.

True sovereignty

God is man's rightful Lord, Satan a false lord, a usurper, a thief, a robber. This distinction between God and the Devil, their contrasted claim on man, is not something which should be added to the contrast between life and death to complete that contrast, for Satan's subordination to God and his helplessness before God are implied in that very contrast itself. When it is said that God is life, it is implied that man becomes man by receiving from God; and when Satan is said to be death, it is implied that man loses his humanity when under the legitimacy of God's claim, and of Satan's, on man is a question that provides its own answer, as is always the case when true sovereignty emerges: the dispute is not settled in favour of the rightful claimant, instead it is clear that the rightful claimant never disputes with the underling but allows him to be just who he is, and thus proceeds with his work using the subordinate usurper as his tool without taking away his evil. So shall it be at the last day when the faithful of the Lord shall attain to fulness of vision and shall see that the death, discipline and evil under which they suffered on earth, ad in which Satan always works, but brought them nearer to life and destroyed the hold that sin, their enemy, had on their inmost being. The enemy executes that which God has determined shall be.

(pp. 93-94, The Living Word, Gustaf Wingren)

Christianity Explored Week 4 Bible Study

I've rather foolishly re-written the week 4 bible study for Christianity Explored. As I was studying the passage I became convinced that it, and the whole of Mark was more eschatological than the questions were giving credit for. I also had a nagging doubt about the significance of the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida.

I also felt that I needed to re-jig certain things for this particular group. I'm not sure I've fully succeeded but here are my questions.

Link to PDF file

Multiplying grain

"the Gospel miracles are ... acted parables of the kingdom." (FF Bruce)

The Parable of the Sower (Mark 4) describes grain multiplying many times over. It is followed by Jesus asking the disciples "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?"

The Feeding of the Five Thousand (Mark 6) describes grain multiplying many times over. It is followed by an explanation that the disciple "did not understand [the acted parable] about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened".

The Feeding of the Four Thousand (Mark 8) describes grain multiplying many times over. It is followed by Jesus asking the disciples "Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?".

Any thoughts?

Directions how to hear sermons (by Charles Simeon)

'Take heed therefore how ye hear' (Luke 8:18)

The office of a Christian minister is arduous. He is to explain and enforce every part of man's duty: he is to search out and censure every sin. After all his labours he will see but little fruit. However faithfully he preach, there are but few who will hear aright. This our Lord had just declared in the parable of the sower. He then enforced His declaration with this most important caution.

1. THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR LORD'S CAUTION

Our Lord elsewhere cautions His people to take heed what they hear; nor can any thing be more necessary than to be on our guard against error. But the caution how we hear was also necessary for the following reasons.

1. Because many hear in an unbecoming manner.

a. The generality are careless hearers. They attend God's house merely in conformity with the customs of the country. They suffer their thoughts to rove after earthly and carnal things. They discern very little difference in the doctrines which they hear. They, like Gallio, seem to 'care for none of these things'.

b. Many are critical hearers. They can attend to nothing which is not composed with elegance; or they affect only what accords with their own views of religion. They judge of all they hear by a standard of their own. Hence they form parties, and set up one minister against another (cf. 1 Cor 3:3,4)

c. Many also are captious hearers. They will not hear any thing which militates against their prejudices . They cannot bear to have their favourite habits condemned. They are offended if their bosom lusts be faithfully reproved. They too much resemble the scribes and Pharisees of old. (See Luke 11:45; Mark 6:17,18; Luke 11:54.) While there continue such hearers, the caution will be necessary.

2. Because God Himself speaks to us by the preacher.

Ministers are ambassadors for God, and speak in Christ's stead. If they preach what is founded on the Scriptures, their word, as far as it is agreeable to the mind of God, is to be considered as God's. This is asserted by our Lord and His apostles. We ought therefore to receive the preacher's word as the word of God Himself. With what humility then ought we to attend to it! What judgments may we not expect, if we slight it. Surely therefore on this account also we need the caution in the text. (See 2 Cor 5:20; John 13:20; 1 Thes 4:8, 2:13.)

3. Because every discourse increases either our salvation or condemnation.

The word delivered is either a savour of life or of death. Our Lord Himself intimates this reason for the caution in the verse from which our text is taken. Hence our Lord's preaching eventually enhanced the guilt of the Jews. The same awful effects will be felt by those who slight His ministers. What stronger reasons for such a caution can possibly be imagined? (See 2 Cor 2:15,16; John 15:22.)

II. OBEYING OUR LORD'S CAUTION

An humble mind will naturally receive instruction in a proper manner.

1. We should hear with candour.

We cannot too carefully divest ourselves of prejudices. We should not call any man 'master' upon earth. We should rather weigh what we hear, in the balance of the sanctuary; but we ought to have our minds open to conviction. We should receive the seed in 'an honest and good heart': we should 'receive with meekness the engrafted word': nor can we hope to profit, if we do not cultivate this disposition. (See Matt 23:10; 1 Thes 5:21; Luke 8:15; James 1:21.)

2. We should hear with a desire to profit.

The Word of God is profitable for many blessed purposes; yet it cannot be serviceable to us if it be not received in faith. But, when applied to the soul, its operation is very powerful. We should therefore at all times apply it to ourselves. We should go to the ordinances, as the sick to Bethesda's pool. Nor do we ever hear aright except when we attend in this spirit. It is the practical hearer only that derives benefit to his soul. (See 2 Tim 3:16,17; Heb 4:2,12; 1 Pet 2:2; James 1:22-25.)

3. We should hear with humble dependence on God's Spirit.

It is God alone who 'teacheth us to profit'. Human labours, without His blessing will be in vain. It is His work to open the understanding and the heart. To Him therefore should we look for the teaching of His Spirit. We should plead the promise which God has given us. In this way we shall experience much benefit from the Word. No obstacles whatever shall be able to withstand its power:L it shall be a rich source of grace and wisdom to us. (See Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14; Is 55:10,11; 2 Cor 10:4; Col 3:16.)

Let us then offer in sincerity that petition in the Litany. 'That it may please thee to give to all thy people increase of grace, to hear meekly thy Word, and to receive it with pure affection, and to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit.'

[From Let Wisdom Judge: University Addresses and Sermon Outlines by Charles Simeon (Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1959, pp. 188-190).

My feelings about this sermon outline are quite mixed. I was prompted to read it today after I found it referenced in Christopher Ash's little booklet Listen Up! A practical guide to listening to sermons. I think Ash has drawn a lot from Simeon, and I respect them both a great deal. I hope to explain later why I'm quite torn about the advice of Ash and Simeon... perhaps you can guess why... It may be another 2 weeks though. I'm revising at the moment.]

Reading too much?

It is far from my intention to depreciate the value or deny the usefulness of books, without exception: a few well-chosen treatises, carefully perused and thoroughly digested, will deserve and reward our pains; but a multiplicity of reading is seldom attended with a good effect.

Besides the confusion it often brings upon the judgment and memory, it occasions a vast expense of time, indisposes for close thinking, and keeps us poor, in the midst of seeming plenty, by reducing us to live upon a foreign supply, instead of labouring to improve and increase the stock of our own reflections.

- John Newton in his letter "A Plan of a Compendious Christian Library" (Works of John Newton, Volume 1, 236). Paragraphing added, HT DG.

I'm not sure if that is entirely true. But its worth reflecting on.

Bible study on Colossians 4:2-6

Sorry for the lack of posting recently.

For what it's worth here is a bible study I've written on the 5 verses of Colossians 4:2-6. I've tried to make a meal out of 82 words by bringing in the whole of chapter 1, and then through that bringing to mind all or Paul's ministry!

We'll see whether it works.

It took ages to write, mainly because it took me a while to figure out how to do the formatting in MS Word 2007.

Mourning with those who mourn

Listening to: Fairport Convention: Leige and Leif

I'm finally reading Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands: People in Need of Change Helping People in Need of Change by Paul Tripp. It is living up to all the hype I have heard. Highly recommended.

These are my notes on Chapter 8 (Building Relationships by Identifying with Suffering) and the third element of four which Tripp identifies a part of a "Loving Ministry Relationship":

1. Enter the person's world
2. Incarnate the love of Christ
3. Identify with suffering
4. Accept with agenda [for their change]

Suffering is common

We are all sinners who suffer. This is something we have in common with everyone. Yet we often respond to sufferers by distancing ourselves from them. We presume that their suffering is something we won't experience, and struggle to relate to them. As a result our ministry often boils down to platitudes, promises of prayer, and gestures.

The bible on suffering:

1. God is sovereign over suffering
2. God is good
3. God has a purpose for our suffering
4. The bible explains the ultimate reasons for our suffering
• Fallen world
• our flesh
• other's sin
• the Devil
• God's good purpose
5. Suffering is real and evil is wrong.

Sufferers usually feel alone, isolated and alienated from others and from God.

If we have suffered to the extent that we know these feelings then:

• This means we can identify with sufferers.
• We are called minister to those in pain.

Hebrews 2:10-12

Christ suffered as our brother. The title "brother" implies:

1. We are in the same family.
2. We are in a similar position in the family
3. We share similar life experiences

This captures our relationship to sufferers. We do not stand above them, as gurus, or those who have arrived. Instead we stand alongside them.

This posture is essential because it recognises that:

1. "God sends people my way, not only so they will change, but so I will too."
2. "We are not what people need. Our purpose is to connect them to a living, active, redeeming Christ. He gives them what they need...I stand alongside you and point you to the Father.
3. It helps to give our stories power, because as we are honest about our failings and sufferings, it shows the relevance of our experiences of God's grace.

Christ was "made perfect" through his suffering. Just as Christ's suffering had a purpose, so our suffering has a purpose. Analogous to Christ, we are sanctified and grow through suffering. We share this with our brothers and sisters who suffer, and it:

• Makes truth we speak concrete, carrying them out of the abstract into the familiar.
• Encourages us to be humble and honest.
• Makes our personal story more about God than me.
• Makes our life a window through which people see the glory of Christ.
• Results in worship of Christ

2 Corinthians 1:3-11

Model of Christian compassion (vv.3-7):

Purposeful suffering --> experience of God's comfort --> ability to comfort others --> community of hope.

• God is the source of compassion. Therefore:
  • God is the comfort we offer people (not 'it will all work out' etc)
  • As God's children we should be marked by his compassion
• The comfort we have received in past suffering is to be passed on in ministry, not hoarded.
• Suffering is how we share in Christ, and so experience his comfort. It is a sign we are in Christ.
• Our suffering belongs to God, and we must put Christ on centre stage as we suffer. "When we feel like dying, he calls us to greater death".
• Purpose of suffering is to fill us with hope.

Method of Christian compassion (vv.8-11):

Practical steps for telling your stories of how God used your sufferings to encourage others:

• Tell a completed story
• It must be old enough to have reached it's ending in how God helped you (not "misery loves company")
• Be honest in describing your struggles and failures
• Be discerning and purposeful
• Limit details.
• Focus on God
• Make God the key actor in the drama
• Tell your story with humility about your continuing need for grace.
• Make it clear that you are not what God needs - God is
• Make the goal of the story worship.

Which antithesis?

I'm reading The Living Word: A Theological Study of Preaching and the Church by Swedish Lutheran Gustaf Wingren. A wonderful £3 buy second-hand. I'm loving it.

It seems a shame to first blog some quotations from it in criticism of Barth, but I think his criticism is of far-reaching proportions. In short he sees Barth as locating a fundamental antithesis between God and humanity that he should instead find between God and the Devil, life and death, Gospel and law. I think this is of enormous importance.

for Barth God and man are opposed to each other, and the question with which he is faced is where the emphasis is to be placed. Liberal theology, against which Barth reacted, emphasized man's significance and put him centre. Barth's alternative is to emphasize God's significance and to put him in the centre. Negatively it is of fundamental importance that Satan and sin play a very uncertain and minor role in Barth's theological system. Thus in no way is the approach of the theology that preceded it corrected, but instead the speculative antithesis between man and God remains unchanged [...] It is striking that time and again in his writings Barth reiterates his criticism, most consistent and clear, of Luther's doctrine of the unity of human and divine in Christ, the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum ["sharing of attributes"].

The meaning of the communicatio idiomatum remains obscure until it is seen against the background of man's subjection to the Devil. God and man do not stand opposed to each other as two incompatible and parallel forms of being, but God and the Devil stand opposed as enemies. Man is God's creation who has been brought into captivity by the enemy of God. Christ's task is to enter human life, destroy Satanic might and free man. Christ's humanity is no limitation of the majesty of God, as Barth argues. Christ's humanity is the conqueror's - God's - presence on the field of battle where Satan is to be laid low in the conqueror's death and resurrection and forced to let go his grip on men [...]

The centre of gravity of the preaching of the Early Church was in Christ's death and resurrection, not in the incarnation [...] If the cross and the resurrection are to retain their New Testament position at the centre of the message, then a revision of the opposition between transcendence and immanence must be brought about. The Lutheran dualism of law and Gospel in the Word performs just that very revising, anti-speculative function. God's work meets us, sub contraria specie ["under contrary appearances"], hidden under the work of death. It must be so, since we are in thrall to sin; when our sin, which insists on ruling in our being, is killed, we receive life but it seems as though it were death. The lifegiving function of the Gospel is indissolubly bound up with the condemnatory and punitive function of the law; the cross is fast bound with the resurrection. If this intrinsic duality of law and Gospel is abandoned and replaced, as in Barth, by a single 'Word' above the law and the Gospel, then there follows also a new metaphysical cleavage, so that within the single Word we discover a higher, transcendent sphere, the Word of God (Gottes Wort) and a lower sphere, the word of man (Menschenswort). Thereby the Platonic doctrine of two worlds becomes supreme in theology. What is specifically theological and Christian is introduced later in the thesis that 'God' and 'man' meet and are brought together in the Incarnation. But in that case the mere meeting between God and man becomes the centre of the New Testament, while struggle and victory in the death and resurrection have lost their place as the centre of the kerygma. This is the chief accusation that must be brought against Karl Barth's theology.

(pp. 31f, 92, 1949, The Living Word)

Any thoughts on whether Wingren is reading Barth rightly?

I think that even if the critique doesn't stick to Barth, it sticks to much less sophisticated theology.

Water and the Spirit in the Gospel of John

"for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel...I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'" (1:31-33)

"When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine.' ... Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, 'Fill the jars with water.' And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, 'Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.' So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, 'Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.'" (2:3-10)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (3:5)

"A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, 'Give me a drink.' ... The Samaritan woman said to him, 'How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?' (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, 'If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, "Give me a drink," you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.' The woman said to him, 'Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.' Jesus said to her, 'Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.' The woman said to him, 'Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.'... God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (4:7-24)

"Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades. In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed. One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, 'Do you want to be healed?' The sick man answered him, 'Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.” Jesus said to him, 'Get up, take up your bed, and walk.' And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked." (5:2-8)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him....It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." (6:53-63)

"On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, 'If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."' Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." (7:37-39)

"[Jesus] anointed the man's eyes with the mud and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing." (9:6-7)

"He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, 'Lord, do you wash my feet?' Jesus answered him, 'What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.' Peter said to him, 'You shall never wash my feet.' Jesus answered him, 'If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.' Simon Peter said to him, 'Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!' Jesus said to him, 'The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.'"(13:4-11)

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth (14:15-17)

"After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), 'I thirst.' A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, 'It is finished,' and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit... one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water." (19:28-34)

"Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'" (20:21-22)

A few things to notice:

• The connection between water, wine, blood, thirsting and washing with Spirit and life.
• Jesus gave up his Spirit and his life in order to give us both. He became thirsty so that we may never have to thirst again. He gave up his Spirit so he could baptise us with it.

"There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel's veins..." (Cowper)

A brief thought on fasting

Most conservative evangelicals functionally believe that we shouldn't fast, even if theoretically they think it is appropriate in the church age. This is probably due to the lack of interest in the physical and (not unconnected) right suspicion of justification by works.

God is not pleased with fasting in and of itself (Is 58:3), and it is not something that he needs to receive from us. Fasting is not something with inherent worth that we can present to God, although he does respond to his people fasting as he does to prayer.

However, I think evangelicals would be more likely to give it a place as a discipline which bears on us rather than God. I think it is often seen as a way to develop self-control, holiness and a desire for God (ala John Piper?). However, this seems to ignore that the Bible seems to see it as a response to felt need, practised irregularly in order to obtain a particular blessing from God.

Perhaps, it is better to see it joined with prayer as an expression of need. Like donning sackcloth and ashes it is not something we offer to God as some 'thing' but an expression of how empty we are before God.

We feel we need God's blessing, so we express that in words by prayer. But as psychosomatic beings we should express particularly serious awareness of need physically as well. It is not uncommon for those suffering from depression, and other mental illnesses, to suffer a loss of appetite. Even if we haven't experienced that most of us know what it is like to be sufficiently preoccupied or stressed to 'not feel like eating'. Fasting in the Bible is tied to these extreme times of mourning or crisis where food should be the last thing on our mind.

This does not mean that we should just fast when we feel like it though, just as we should not only pray when we feel like it. It is good to fast when we know we should fast even if we don't feel like it; just as it is good to pray when we know we should pray even if we don't feel like it.

I hope that makes sense.

What I've been up to

Sorry for the lack of blogging recently. I've been busy, not reading enough weighty books and simply not in the mood. But I'm still alive and well so don't worry. Here are a few things I've been thinking about that may possibly interest you.

• Just finished What Kind of God? Responding to 10 popular accusations by Michael Ots and it is really great book. Winsome, brief and thoughtful. I now finally have the giveaway book for non-Christians with moral objections to the Christian faith. It can go alongside Real Life Jesus: meaning, freedom, purpose which is my book for non-Christians interested in what Christianity is all about. Now 'all' I need is a giveaway book for people with scientific/historical objections to Christianity. Any thoughts welcome.
• The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God by Greg Beale has picked up on reaching the NT, and if I was in the mood I'd be blogging loads of reflections on it.
• I've been reminding myself how great Lesslie Newbigin and Martin Luther are.
• Daniel Montgomery of Sojourn Community Church has been thinking about exactly what Tim Keller was talking about in my last post on triperspectival application and communicates it nicely in this video:
• I've said it before, but listen to these Tim Keller/Ed Clowney lectures if you are thinking about applying the Bible to people's lives in a Christ-centred, grace-filled and culturally sensitive way. Counterfeit Gods is a good example of the principles being put into practice.
• This may also be a good point to remind people that I keep trying to keep a post with links to Mike Reeves MP3s up-to-date. I've just added links to talks on Aquinas. Mike Reeves' passion for the Gospel, God and historical theology is infectious. He is a uniquely gifted man.
• Oh, and I had the honour of doing a couple of blog posts in Glen's Exodus series on Bezalel and Oholiab and the Priests' Garments.

Hopefully things will get more interesting around here soon.

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?