The person AND work of Christ

Some of us talk a lot about the Gospel and criticise legalism. We rejoice a lot in what God has done in the cross of Christ, but less in Christ himself. The Gospel, or perhaps more commonly 'grace' is abstracted and made into a principle or scheme. We are not very good at saying what we are saved to, or who we are reconciled to. We are good at talking about redemption, but not revelation. We should rejoice more in the person of Christ, not just because of what he has done.

Some of us talk a lot about Jesus and criticise monster-God alternatives. We rejoice a lot in who God is, but are remarkably uninterested in what he has done. Jesus becomes a cipher or an idealised God-as-I'd-like-him and not a real person who acts and interacts with us in our fallen state. We are are not very good at saying that we are saved or reconciled and God is being offered as a nice option on the menu we can freely choose. We are good at talking about revelation, but not redemption. We should rejoice more in the work of Christ, not just because it shows us who he is.

I wish I could say that better than I have... I say 'we' in the post because I am always overbalancing one way or another, but lets be people who rejoice in the person and work of Christ (which, incidentally, saves us from both the power and the penalty of sin)

Christian notes on the beginning of Samuel

Hannah's prayer (1 Samuel 2:1-10) begins with her heart exulting and her horn exalting! It ends with YHWH exalting his anointed king.

This is striking because as yet there is no king of Israel, only judges. This is compounded by verse 10 which says that YHWH himself will judge, not just Israel, but the earth.

It is also striking because it implies that Hannah has united her exaltation with the exaltation of the Messiah. Hannah sees that she will be exalted in the Messiah's exaltation. Christ's resurrection and glorification will be her resurrection and glorification. This is a gift she could only grasp by faith!

Union with Christ in his death and resurrection comes out in the middle of the prayer. The middle is marked by great reversals, the greatest of which is that "The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up." God will bring the rich to poverty and the poor to prosperity, the childless will give birth, the hungry will eat, etc.

Standing at the beginning of the book of Samuel we see this movement of death to new life in all the messianic shadows in the book:

1. The judges: Eli dies and Samuel is the new and better judge.
2. The priests: Eli dies and all his line is gradually wiped out (only completed in 1 Kings 1-2), and Samuel and then ultimately Zadok are the new and better priests.
3. The kings: Saul dies and David is the new and better king.

Luke picks up a lot of Samuel's messianic shadows.

It is often noted that Mary, who like Hannah has no possibility of having a child humanly speaking, sings a Hannah-like song in the Magnificat. She too rejoices in the Lord and in the great reversals he will bring about. Zechariah also sees God raising up a horn of salvation (Luke 1:69). In fact, Zechariah can be seen to perform a role similar to that of Eli. Eli is a flawed priest who does recognise what God is doing with Samuel and accepts the judgement on his line. Zechariah is also flawed but sees what God is doing in Christ.

Simeon prophesies that Jesus will be the cause of the "falling and rising of many in Israel" just as Samuel is. What neither he, nor Mary or Zechariah mention when they mention the great reversals is that Jesus will be the cause of these things by both happening in him. He will fall and rise again. All those apart from him will fall in their condemnation of him. All those united to him will fall into the grave too, but rise again by the power of the Father's Spirit.

Finally, just to bolt on the end. It is mentioned a number of times that Samuel grows up (1 Samuel 2:21; 3:19) and the same is said of Jesus in Luke (1:80; 2:52). Another indication that Luke had Samuel on the mind....

Speak Jesus

Not all Christian jargon is good, but today I heard about 'speaking Jesus', which I think is great!

But perhaps you think it is just bad grammar. After all, how can you 'speak Jesus'? You can understand how to speak 'about Jesus', or 'to Jesus', but not simply 'speak Jesus'.

Jack Kilcrease has recently commented on postmodernism. He says it could be described as 'provisionalism' because it teaches that all representation of reality is provisional because it is not the thing it represents. So, the sign (e.g. the word 'tree') can never wholly convey the thing signified (e.g. the tree itself). However, Lutherans teach that by the promise of God the thing signified could be 'in, with and under' the sign. That is not the case with everything, but if God promises then he will perform the miracle.

The language of 'in, with and under' comes from the teaching that Christ is really present in the Lord's Supper. But you could also say the same about Baptism, and the words of absolution.

The same thing could then be applied to the Bible. It is not just about Jesus, but Jesus is really present when it is read. Similarly, when I speak faithfully about Jesus he is there with us. That's how I understand Matthew 18; Jesus is present when two are three are gathered because, and only because, of the words spoken. In this sense the Bible doesn't simply contain the Word of God in parts, but is the Word of God.

This can also be applied to the Church. Christ is 'in, with and under' the Church, so that it really is the Body of Christ and when you persecute the Church you persecute Christ (Acts 26:14).

This is all achieved by the Father sending the Spirit to create a mystical union.

I don't claim to understand Barth (perhaps Dan B could help me out), but I've always been struck by hearing that he taught that "God is his revelation", so there is no God other than the God who is Jesus Christ. Mike Reeves at NWA showed from Ezekiel and elsewhere that "God is his glory", or more specifically God the Father's glory has the name Jesus Christ. It is a bit mind-bending, and I think the language of 'in, with and under' (which, probably not coincidentally, are the words Paul uses for our union with Christ) are more helpful because the identification is not strict (otherwise Barth would be a Christomonist and I would believe that the Christ is the worldwide Church).

Does that make sense to people?

It could probably do with a lot more meditation and definitely a better written post than I have time for today, but I think I may adopt that lovely bit of Christian jargon: 'Speak Jesus to people'.

Why blogging is light

The reason my blogging is limited and pretty low-grade at the moment is that I've just moved cities and started a new and challenging job (Trainee Solicitor).

Time will tell whether blogging can continue in a meaningful way. I'm thankful for my new job but at the same time I found the following quotation from Luther, on the Shepherds outside Bethlehem, encouraging today:

Next to faith this is the highest art — to be content with the calling in which God has placed you. I have not learned it yet.

It's good to know you're not alone.

HT Steve

Something to spark some thoughts

"I think people tend not to believe in God until they need him." (David Zahl)

"God won't be your only hope, until he is your only hope." (Jared Wilson)

...Is that true? Is it true wholly or partly? What are the implications for our dealing with suffering? What are the implications for our preaching? What are the implications for seeking to grow as Christians?

They come from these two videos:

On the videos, one of my most profound reflections is that David Zahl looks scarily like my Uncle Stuart. I also wondered whether Doug Sweeney really got what Jared Wilson was saying.

Job's good comforters

We often focus on Job's miserable comforters, but right at the end of the book we see some exemplary comforters:

"Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold." (Job 42:11)

Job's relatives do the following:

• They are physically present. Notably this is in the important act of eating together with him.
• They show him sympathy (better translation from my limited knowledge: "they mourn expressively")
• They comfort him, presumably particularly with words
• They help him practically with money.

A few random thoughts on Job

• Job was "blameless and upright". Time and again, I hear evangelicals say, "we know Job can't be perfect, but nevertheless he was a faithful person". Seems a bit like lowering-the-bar theology to me. Why can't we say that he really was blameless and upright because Christ's blamelessness and uprightness was credited to him?
• Job is so conscientious that he is concerned that his sons have "cursed God in their hearts". Satan's objective is to get Job to curse God to his face (1:11; 2:5). Job's wife encourages him to do just that (2:9). Recalls the Fall, although Job doesn't sin. Also speaking truly about God seems to be a major theme, as God picks that up in 42:7-8.
• Job does not suffer despite being righteous, but because he is righteous.
• Job's faith in the early chapters of the book is often held up as a model. Should it be? He does fear God, and doesn't grasp onto false rights to good things from God, but there is no indication that he has hope or trust in God as his Father. Rather than lauding the initial reactions of Job, I think we should see Job's faith as only partial in the famous "the Lord gives and the Lord takes away". He concludes his final speech by saying, "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." Before he knew something of God, but through his suffering and God's revelation he is brought to a much deeper and richer knowledge of God as the one who is in control but also has good purposes. The vision of God Job has at the end is the vision we should focus on.
• In the early chapters Satan is portrayed as the one bringing the suffering upon Job, with God only as the one permitting it. However both Job and the narrator attribute the suffering to God and never to Satan. Although that must bring certain problems for the believer, it is tremendously important. If suffering is purely by chance, fate or a wholly malevolent being then we can't ask for it to stop. If it is our Father who disciplines us because he loves us we can ask him to stop when the discipline is too much and have a certain hope he will answer.

My top 10 songs

For what it's worth, here are my top 10 (in no particular order):

• My Song is Love Unknown (Crossman)
• Before the Throne Above (Bancroft, tune by Cook)
• In Christ Alone (Townend/Getty)
• How Deep the Father's Love (Townend)
• And can it be that I should gain (Wesley)
• When I Survey the Wondrous Cross (Watts)
• I cannot tell why He whom angels worship (Fullerton)
• When I was lost you came and rescued me (Simmonds)
• The Look (Newton, adapted by Kauflin)
• It is Finished (Wesley, Praise version I think)

What are your favourites?

The Bible's love story

The Bible is an unusual love story.

The Father chooses Israel to be a bride for his Son. His Son marries Israel at Sinai but she never loved him and never does. Time and again the Son tries to win the heart of his wife only to see her run after other men.

Sometimes he leaves her to it, hoping she will see through the false promises of those who seduce her. Sometimes he disciplines her to try and drive home the horror of what she is doing, but he doesn't kill her because he really loves her (compared with the cultural norm a great mercy). Sometimes he declares his love of her and sometimes he simply tells her to love him. Often he just showers her with gifts to try and win her, even though it makes him look like a cuckold to the nations.

However, as perhaps many of us know from experiences of unrequited love, you cannot persuade someone to love you. You can try all sorts but love isn't something that you can create in another person's heart just as you can't create it in your own. It is called 'falling in love' because it is not something that happens in a planned way.

The husband knows the punishment for adultery is death. Jesus sees his wife commit adultery again and again and knows that the patience of God cannot continue forever. But God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit love Jesus' wife so much that they plan a way to save the woman. The Son will identify with her so completely as one flesh that he will take her place and die for her sins. In fact the wife who has for years acted like she wanted her husband dead, does the murder.

That would be a tragic love story if it ended there, but praise God it doesn't.

The Father raises the Son, but the widow is an unchanged woman. She needs to be born again - to be given a heart transplant where her old heart is killed and she is given a new one. There is only one person who has made that journey from death to life before and in the same way as he identified with her to the uttermost in dying her death, she is indentified with him by dying with him and so being raised with him. In baptism recieved from God by faith this happens - she is made anew with a heart which beats for him and she waits eagerly for the future day when she will marry him to live with him for eternity.

With thanks to Tim Salaska

Progressive revelation in Hebrews

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son

Hebrews begins with one of the clearest statements of progressive revelation in the Bible. But by 1:6 the author is quoting from the Song of Moses where the God who saved Israel out of Egypt is identified with the Son (cf. Jude 1:5).

By 2:2-3 the author is arguing, from the lesser to the greater, that if under the old covenant the punishment was severe how much more careful should we be to enter the rest. But then in 4:2 he says that "good news came to us just as to them", so they already had the good news and were looking forward to just the rest that we are promised.

Lots to think about.

Where's Christ in the OT?

In a similar vein to my last post, do you ever read a passage and wonder where Christ is in the passage?

One thing I've found helpful is to remember that all the Bible is about communication/action from God to humans. Therefore there are three elements to it:

1. The speaker/actor: God
2. The message/the means of action
3. The hearer/the acted upon (both good and bad guys)

Because Christ is God, the message of the Bible, and the representative man/Israel etc then you can find Christ in each of these elements.

For example in Wisdom you can find Jesus as:

1. The ultimate wise man we should listen to
2. The content of wisdom we should learn
3. The person who obediently listens to his wise Father and receives all the blessings that come from wisdom and/or the person who receives all the curses of being a fool (in our place)

Or, for another example, in the story of Noah he is:

1. The God who rescues his chosen people from the coming wrath
2. The ark in whom we are saved from death
3. The person who is brought through the flood (death) to become the firstborn of a new people and/or the person who is drowned in the wrath of God's judgment against sin (in our place)

Or in prophecy he is:

1. The person who appeared to the prophets and gave them the words to say
2. The content of the prophecy
3. the people who will receive the promise (land, life etc) and/or the people who will be rejected and destroyed (in our place)

Bible study block

Do you ever get a block when preparing a Bible study, or trying to hear God in your personal Bible reading?

I do.

One thing I've found helpful to kick start constructive reflection (other than prayer!) is to ask three questions (nicked from someone else):

1. What does this passage say about God?
2. What does this passage say about humans?
3. What comes out of this? (in terms of God's response/our response)

Motivation for mission

'we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.' (2 Cor 4:13-15)

Mission is founded on personal hope in the Gospel (v.14) and for the sake of

• the salvation of the lost, so that
• thanksgiving may increase, so that
• God is glorified.

So it is not simply an expression of personal joy, or simply to save people from hell, or even simply for God's glory. It is all of those, but in a certain relationship.

(cf. Romans 15)

Incidentally, every time I read Paul these days I see the importance of thanksgiving for him (46 occurrences in ESV). Perhaps I should read David Pao's book.

Moses and his veil

Listening to: Sufjan Stevens: The Age of Adz

Moses did not wear his veil when he was speaking to YHWH or when he was speaking to Israel the words of YHWH (Exodus 34). When he was acting as mediator he was unveiled, when he wasn't he was veiled.

The veil is like the curtain of the temple separating God from humanity, hiding his glory because of our sinfulness. Like the Tabernacle this hiding of God was both a judgement and a grace. It was judgement because it was a barrier between the God of life and us, but it was a grace because the glory of God is lethal to people on whom guilt still rests. That is why the people were afraid when they saw the glory (v.30), just as they were afraid when the law was given at Sinai (20:18).

Following Christ's death God has torn the curtain and the veil is no longer put in place by God because the glory of God is unveiled in the face of Christ. However, Satan veils this glory (2 Cor 4), and for people whose minds are hardened the veil lies not over the face of Christ but over their hearts (2 Cor 3:14).

Why should we not be afraid now that God is unveiled to us? Why can we be confident (v. 4) and bold (v.12) in approaching God? The reason is that (just as for Paul and his ministry), our sufficiency comes from God (v.5). We are made sufficient, by the Spirit (vv. 6, 17, 18) who Christ pours out on us following his death, resurrection and ascension.

It was not that we didn't see God in the law. There was glory there (v.9), but the glory in the face of Christ is superior because it permanently brings the Spirit, life and righteousness (vv.6, 9), rather than temporarily bringing the letter, death and condemnation.

Because Christ is now the mediator, not human beings like Moses or Paul, we don't proclaim ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord (4:5).

With thanks to Bill Dumbrell and John Piper, who may not agree with all this. I still don't understand 2 Cor 3:13 though. Help gratefully received.

Don Carson on domains of discourse

For clarity of thought and expression, it is important to distinguish between two domains of discourse, viz. exegesis and theology. Of course, for those who want the “norming norm” of their theology to be Scripture, the links between the two disciplines must be much more than casual. Nevertheless, not only their respective methods, but even their respective vocabularies, can be very different.

Carson then discusses the different ways in which the Bible and Systematic/Historical Theology uses the words sanctification and reconciliation. He believes that the Bible teaches that sanctification is progressive, and God is reconciled to humanity, even if it never uses the terms sanctification and reconciliation to describe it.

He concludes, applying it to the doctrine of imputation, although its application is broader:

The bearing of these reflections is obvious. Even if we agree that there is no Pauline passage that explicitly says, in so many words, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to his people, is there biblical evidence to substantiate the view that the substance of this thought is conveyed? And if such a case can be made, should the exegete be encouraged to look at the matter through a wider aperture than that provided by philology and formulae? And should we ask the theologian to be a tad more careful with texts called up to support the doctrine?

('The Vindication of Imputation: On Fields of Discourse and Semantic Fields')

John Webster on discipleship

The command is to follow at a distance: 'Follow after me', Jesus commands Simon and Andrew.

In the movement required of the disciples that is there can be no question of them being companions of Jesus in the way in the sense of fellow travellers of equal ability and dignity. No, between the one who follows and the one who follows there is always an unbridgeable distance.

Like the cloud and pillar of fire in the wilderness, Jesus goes ahead of his followers. He is present with them, yes, but he is present always as the transcendent Lord.

Nor can there be any hope for the eventual closing of the gap between Jesus and those who follow. The distance between him and them is not such that we can expect that it will gradually narrow and finally close entirely as the disciples grow in knowledge or skill or virtue. No, they are permanently, by nature and not merely temporarily, those who come after him.

The summons to follow doesn't look ahead to growing proximity but to a condition in which the disciples walk in the wake of Jesus, in which they pulled along by his movement. Set in motion by him, but always unlike him and so behind him.

In this connection, of course, much might be made of the distinctiveness of following Jesus, over and against the relations between Rabbi and pupil or between moral model and the one who imitates such an example.

The pupil eventually becomes a Rabbi, the imitator grows like the model. But the disciple never moves beyond the condition of following. There is no assimilation to be awaited. Even at the end of the disciples' journey with Jesus in Mark, after the resurrection, Jesus continues to go before his disciples, anticipating them as they hasten in his direction.

[...]

The substance of Jesus' call is, further: 'follow me'. It is irreducibly personal, notice: a call to enter into a movement which is a relation to Jesus himself.

Everything hangs on this. Jesus speaks in his own name, with his own authority. He doesn't refer the one called to some other, not even to God himself. Discipleship is a matter of of following Jesus as personal absolute, that is as the absolute in person. Following Jesus isn't a command to take upon oneself a commitment to some cause or principle or truth beyond or behind Jesus - as if Jesus were the symbol or highest instance of something other than himself.

The name of Jesus cannot be eliminated without losing everything.

As Bonhoeffer puts it: in the matter of discipleship Jesus is the only content.

(about the 40min mark, MP3 lecture, John Webster, Discipleship and calling, Scottish Evangelical Theology Conference 2005)

Unreached Village

Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written,

“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles,
and sing to your name.”

And again it is said,

“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.”

And again,

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and let all the peoples extol him.”

...I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else's foundation, but as it is written,

“Those who have never been told of him will see,
and those who have never heard will understand.”

(Romans 15)

Paul's ambition is for the whole earth to be full of the praise of God for his mercy in Jesus Christ.

A couple of my friends work for Gospel for Asia, a wonderful mission agency deeply committed to seeing this happen. They believe that the best way to do this is by means of missionaries born and brought up in those very areas, and seek to encourage funds to flow from the West to the East to fuel that.

They've just made a new website called the Unreached Village to raise awareness and to ask some awkward questions.

Imagine the world as a village of 100 people (where one of the North Americans looks suspiciously like me)...

I'm thankful for John Piper who for years has been a prophetic voice on the primacy in missions of reaching the unreached. Like Paul he taught me that mission primarily exists because worship doesn't. Check out his important article here.

Three caricatures to kill

Gustaf Aulén, in his preface to the paperback edition of Christus Victor explains that in connection with the image of God his book has as its aim the exposure of three caricatures of God:

the God of fatalism, where even the evil proceeds from God; the God of moralism, where the spontaneity of the Love of God is being killed; and finally the shallow view of God's Love, where Love is considered self-evident, and where, therefore, every sense of the Love's hard work has been lost. Concerning gods of these types a 'god-is-dead-theology' could do us a service - especially if its death sentences were efficacious. Then it would be a work in the service of the living God of the Gospel.

The Epic Gospel Story

Gustaf Aulén says of the subjective/moral influence view of the atonement that it sets "forth a 'purified,' 'simple' conception of God, whose characteristic is an unchanging Love. But the simplicity is won at the cost of the obscuring of the hostility of the Divine Love to evil; the conception of the Divine Love has become humanised, and at the same time rather obvious and stereotyped" (p. 154, Christus Victor).

I haven't read Love Wins, so don't know if this is fair, but I did recently come across one persons view of it. He felt it was

an exceptionally bland story. There is no drama. No deep conflict requiring resolution. No compelling need for a satisfying denouement. Where is the insurmountable problem that must be overcome? Where’s the cliff we might fall off? Where’s the foreshadowed death that can be avoided only by intervention from the outside? Nothing is ever really at stake in Bell’s tale of limitless happy endings. It has even less suspense than a child’s bedtime story.

(pp. 145-206, Mike Wittmer, Christ Alone)

The real story of the Bible is never bland or obvious, but full of colour and surprises.

Last night in our home group we read the whole of Ephesians. It struck me afresh that the Gospel story is an epic. It is cosmic in scope, evil really is dark, the battle is violent, and there is a great hero.

Un-systematic ramblings on systematisation

Gustaf Aulén believes the 'classic' view of the atonement is only 'an idea, a motif, a theme' and not a 'theory'. 'It has been fully definite and unambiguous' in its expression, but 'it has never been shaped into a rational theory' (p. 157, Christus Victor).

The classic type is characterised by a whole series of contrasts of opposites, which defy rational systematisation, while the other two find rational solutions of the antinomies along theological or psychological lines.

...the oppositions of the classic type...are present wherever the classic type appears. God is at once the all-ruler, and engaged in conflict with the powers of evil. These powers are evil powers, and at the same time executants of God's judgment on sin. God is at the same time the Reconciler and the Reconciled. His is the Love and His the Wrath. The Love prevails over the Wrath, and yet Love's condemnation of sin is absolute. The Love is infinite and unfathomable, acting contra rationem et legem [contrary to reason and law], justifying men without any satisfaction of the Divine justice or any consideration of human merit; yet at the same time God's claim on men is sharpened to the uttermost.

Every attempt to force this conception into a purely rational scheme is bound to fail; it could only succeed by robbing it of its religious depth. For theology lives and has its being in these combinations of seemingly incompatible opposites.

(p. 155, Christus Victor)

In this respect he is a typical Lutheran. Frustrating to a rationalist like me and yet full of life and colour.

He calls on Luther to aid him in his cause, and even though I think Luther was less opposed to substitutionary atonement than Aulén believes, it is difficult to argue that Luther was ever systematic. He wrote scores of volumes of work and yet almost nothing that could be described as systematic.

More recently I have encountered much of this anti-systematic Lutheranism in Gerhard Forde and Oswald Bayer. Steven Paulson, a student of Forde, recalls another theologian quip about Forde that he had "lost interest in doing systematic theology".

Another student of Forde, Mark Mattes's has recently written a book analysing the theology of Jungel, Pannenberg, Moltmann, Jenson and Bayer. He argues:

Theology should not be about providing an overall system, but instead should deconstruct systems. Undoubtedly, it is desirable for the church's catechesis to seek rhetorically a structured presentation of the faith ...[but not] a "God's eye view" of all reality...The most important task in theology is not construction but discernment. All construction needs to subordinate itself to this discernment, and not vice versa.

(pp. 181-182, The Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology)

Against this background it is only really Bayer that he finds limiting theology appropriately:

For Bayer, theology is not done to integrate all knowledge, either theoretical or practical, into an abstract unity, but to limit reason to its proper fields. It is the art of discerning what God is saying to us, not peering into the divine

(p. 149)

In biblical theology I have found Seifrid also upholding this lack of systematisation.

PS In case you wondered, I feel the Lutherans have something useful to say here, but I am not totally with them.

Christus Victor

In Christus Victor, Gustaf Aulén summarises his strange but seminal account of the three atonement 'theories' as follows:

1. structure - Classic: continuity of divine action and discontinuity in the legal order; Latin: discontinuity of divine action and continuity in the legal order; Subjective: man as active party.
2. The idea of Sin - Classic: sin is an objective power and also deeply personalised; Latin: materialized view of sin; Subjective: weak view of sin.
3. Salvation - Classic: comprehensive in scope; Latin: 'series of acts standing in relatively loose connection'; Subjective: psychological change.
4. Christ and the incarnation - Classic: God himself had to do work so incarnation is necessary; Latin: less clearly necessary as God is not direct agent in atonement; Subjective: Jesus is only the 'Pattern Man' and divinity of Jesus is downplayed.
5. The conception of God - Classic: 'idea of God involves a double opposition' as he is manifested in conflict with evil, yet at the same time as the 'all-ruler' so dualism is 'not to be ultimate'; Latin: has less violent form of opposition that is compromised in a rational way; Subjective: no opposition.

He has come under much criticism for the accuracy of his historical theology. I am also thoroughly confused by what he was trying to say in some parts (e.g. on incarnation) and think he is almost wilfully blind to what a proponent of the Latin view would say in response to some of his points.

Interesting reading though, particularly because exponents of Christus Victor don't seem to see its strengths to be the same as those Aulén gets most excited about.

The three forms of the word of God

I have heard there are three forms of the word of God and Glen recently mentioned it may originate with Barth/Luther. Barth certainly popularized the classification. There is a hierarchy, but they are all bound together. The three forms are:

1. the Personal/Eternal Word of God - Jesus Christ;
2. the Spoken word - the present proclamation in preached words and sacramental words;
3. the Written word - the Bible.

They are linked as:

• The Father speaks the Personal Word
• the Personal Word speaks the Spoken word (either directly or by his Spirit indwelt ambassadors)
• the Spoken word is recorded in the Written word
• the Written word serves the Spoken word by ensuring it continues to be heard
• the Spoken word serves the Personal Word by ensuring he continues to be heard
• the Personal Word serves the Father by ensuring he is heard

On the way from the Father each form of the word is Spirit-breathed by means of the previous, and on the way back to the Father serves the glorification of the latter by the Spirit.

Was Paul a 'together' person?

Paul was an anxious guy (Philippians 2:28; 2 Corinthians 11:28), but he knew that when he was anxious he had to pass everything to God in prayer (Philippians 4:6).

When he was persecuted he "despaired of life itself", but looking back he saw that was to rely not on himself but on God who raises the dead (2 Corinthians 1:8-9).

Moses doubts

Listening to: Bob Dylan: Blonde on Blonde

Moses said to the LORD, “Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue.”

Then the LORD said to him, “Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak.”

But he said, “Oh, my Lord, please send someone else.”

Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses

(Exodus 4:10-13)

Moses turned to the Lord and said, “O Lord, why have you done evil to this people? Why did you ever send me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has done evil to this people, and you have not delivered your people at all.”

But the LORD said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for with a strong hand he will send them out, and with a strong hand he will drive them out of his land.”

God spoke to Moses and said to him, “I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty [El Shaddai], but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them. I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they lived as sojourners. Moreover, I have heard the groaning of the people of Israel whom the Egyptians hold as slaves, and I have remembered my covenant. Say therefore to the people of Israel, ‘I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment. I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the LORD your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. I will bring you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. I will give it to you for a possession. I am the LORD.’”

(Exodus 5:22-6:8)

In the both passages Moses doubts.

In the first passage Moses doubts God's power and God is angry.

In the second passage Moses doubts God's good purposes and God promises he will save and then Moses will stop doubting.

Leithart says of Barth:

What does Barth make of the “Name” theology of the OT? It shows that Israel must know God a “second time,” not only as hidden God but as revealed God. To know the name is to know God as partner in covenant (317-18).

The hidden God is the God of power only. His purposes are uncertain.

The revealed God is the God of both power and good purposes.

With thanks to Jim H

Pastoral discernment

I heard Mark Mattes say in a talk not long ago that the art of distinguishing law and Gospel is not a matter of syntax but of pastoral discernment.

I experienced that powerfully this week when I shared with a friend Philippians 1:6: "I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ".

It was a verse that had really encouraged me and I hoped would encourage them. They appreciated it, although felt that in my words there was a hint of condemnation for the negative feelings they were experiencing. Fair or not, I knew that they needed to hear the Gospel, but I delivered the wrong goods.

On the other hand sometimes I can fail to realise what goods need to be delivered at all. I can think that someone needs to hear a command when they need to hear a promise. On other occasions I can think someone needs to hear a promise when they need to hear a command.

It is a hard skill, as Oswald Bayer comments:

Luther refers to the discovery of how to make the distinction as a breakthrough...But such freeing does not have the character of an experience that one, as such, can leave behind and that one can keep at the ready and used at will. It remains an art and a skill, a blessing that is experienced when one can distinguish properly in a very tough situation.

(p. 67, Martin Luther's Theology)

There has been a lot of blog discussion recently about the role of the law in sanctification and I have found Dane Ortlund's reflections very, very wise and perceptive. Among them he observes that "ministry context plays a part in how we parse out the gospel [Also] personality--specific, unique, wiring; our own personal bent--plays a role [as] does personal history and background".

Books and blogs loose this pastoral element which is one reason why I am slow to recommend a book that has helped me to a person unless I feel I know them fairly well. One Christian may love a book and another hate it, and that can have nothing to do with its worth.

So I appreciated that when Dave Bish experienced Joe Thorn's book as "more like law" he didn't generalise that to saying that the book was law. To some other people I am sure they will experience it as Gospel.

This is not to say that everything is relative because I do not think words can mean whatever you want them to mean. But if both law and Gospel are personal address then the person being addressed is important as well as the words used. Tone, context and the character of the person speaking are also massively significant.