Skip to content

Month: August 2008

Published on Leave a comment on Trinity, revelation and OT – 10

You may know that I (sporadically but vigourously!) bang the drum for Christ the eternal Mediator being the deliberately revealed, consciously known object of faith in the Old Testament.  Here are some posts on the issue.

Pete Myers read it and posted this.  And our further discussions are here and here.

By way of some kind of response, here are ten propositions that circle around some of the issues. (Fabricius eat your heart out). 

For those yawning right now, hold on for some grand hilarity next week - I'm on holidays and will post only frivolity.  For those fixing to flex their theological muscles, remember to play nice.

.

10. The One is not more ultimate than the Three.  Neither is the immanent something different to what we see in the economic. 

.

.

...continue reading "Trinity, revelation and OT – 10"

Published on Leave a comment on Jesus or ’empathy and courtesy’?

Channel 4 screened the first of Make Me a Christian last night.  Haven't seen it yet.  But here's one reviewer's reaction:

The infuriating thing will be if some of the group think happier lives can only be achieved through Jesus, rather than, say, empathy and courtesy and not being fat / crying / shagging all the time.

btw I'll give you one guess which newspaper!

Anyway, here's the gist of their gripe: 'You Christians can have your Jesus, I'll stick with my empathy and courtesy.' 

First notice what diminished values they are.  Not love and sacrifice - empathy and courtesy.  (Reminds me of a parishioner telling me we need to preach more 'tolerance' from the pulpit. I told him we'd do no such thing.  We would preach what Jesus preached - to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.  How ridiculous is the virtue of 'tolerance'!)

But notice most of all the self-righteousness.  They haven't rejected Jesus in favour of license.  They've rejected Him in favour of law.  Their own law to be sure, but law nonetheless. 

Even the most 'lawless' can actually be seen seeking their own righteousness by their own power according to their own law.  Hitler was a non-smoking, vegetarian, tee-totaller. He had his own struggle with his own rules by which he would be righteous.

In this sense the vast majority of people are legalists.  Only the truly despairing, depressed and suicidal have actually given off the quest for a righteousness of their own.  And note too that such people have also given off their quest for freedom and happiness.  I'm just not sure that there is a category of licentious people who are not also legalists.  Am I wrong on this?

If not, what would this mean?  Well it should remove from us any desire to give people God's law as the proper guide for their self-righteous instincts!  The problem is not merely and not mainly that the law by which they are seeking to justify themselves is faulty.  To justify themselves by the right law is even worse!  The Jew who sought to justify themselves by God's law is not less but more culpable in His sight (Romans 2-3). 

The gospel must be the answer.  The gospel is not, 'Try doing things this way'.  The gospel is 'It is finished!'  Now that will humble.  That will drive the world down to contrition and brokenness because our real drive is not an abstract lawlessness but a craving to establish ourselves, justify ourselves, to make a name.  Jesus, in being our righteousness, strips us of our fig leaves of empathy and courtesy.  Our deepest social, ethical and environmental concerns are filthy rags.  He calls us to renounce this 'righteousness' and be clothed only in Him. 

That's far more offensive than telling people the right laws by which to self-justify.  I wonder which route the Channel 4 team will take?  I think I can guess.

.

UPDATE: Read Marcus' blog here or Daniel Blanche - seems like my fears are founded!

.

Published on Leave a comment on Jesus or 'empathy and courtesy'?

Channel 4 screened the first of Make Me a Christian last night.  Haven't seen it yet.  But here's one reviewer's reaction:

The infuriating thing will be if some of the group think happier lives can only be achieved through Jesus, rather than, say, empathy and courtesy and not being fat / crying / shagging all the time.

btw I'll give you one guess which newspaper!

Anyway, here's the gist of their gripe: 'You Christians can have your Jesus, I'll stick with my empathy and courtesy.' 

First notice what diminished values they are.  Not love and sacrifice - empathy and courtesy.  (Reminds me of a parishioner telling me we need to preach more 'tolerance' from the pulpit. I told him we'd do no such thing.  We would preach what Jesus preached - to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.  How ridiculous is the virtue of 'tolerance'!)

But notice most of all the self-righteousness.  They haven't rejected Jesus in favour of license.  They've rejected Him in favour of law.  Their own law to be sure, but law nonetheless. 

Even the most 'lawless' can actually be seen seeking their own righteousness by their own power according to their own law.  Hitler was a non-smoking, vegetarian, tee-totaller. He had his own struggle with his own rules by which he would be righteous.

In this sense the vast majority of people are legalists.  Only the truly despairing, depressed and suicidal have actually given off the quest for a righteousness of their own.  And note too that such people have also given off their quest for freedom and happiness.  I'm just not sure that there is a category of licentious people who are not also legalists.  Am I wrong on this?

If not, what would this mean?  Well it should remove from us any desire to give people God's law as the proper guide for their self-righteous instincts!  The problem is not merely and not mainly that the law by which they are seeking to justify themselves is faulty.  To justify themselves by the right law is even worse!  The Jew who sought to justify themselves by God's law is not less but more culpable in His sight (Romans 2-3). 

The gospel must be the answer.  The gospel is not, 'Try doing things this way'.  The gospel is 'It is finished!'  Now that will humble.  That will drive the world down to contrition and brokenness because our real drive is not an abstract lawlessness but a craving to establish ourselves, justify ourselves, to make a name.  Jesus, in being our righteousness, strips us of our fig leaves of empathy and courtesy.  Our deepest social, ethical and environmental concerns are filthy rags.  He calls us to renounce this 'righteousness' and be clothed only in Him. 

That's far more offensive than telling people the right laws by which to self-justify.  I wonder which route the Channel 4 team will take?  I think I can guess.

.

UPDATE: Read Marcus' blog here or Daniel Blanche - seems like my fears are founded!

.

Published on Leave a comment on Bonhoeffer on Preaching

Check out this Bonhoeffer quote.  H/T Ben Myers. 

“It is wrong to assume that on the one hand there is a word, or a truth, and on the other hand there is a community existing as two separate entities, and that it would then be the task of the preacher to take this word, to manipulate and enliven it, in order to bring it within and apply it to the community. Rather, the Word moves along this path of its own accord. The preacher should and can do nothing more than be a servant of this movement inherent in the Word itself, and refrain from placing obstacles in its path.”

—Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship (Bonhoeffer Works Vol. 4; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), pp. 227-28.

Or as Barth would say (speaking of the Spirit), the Lord who speaks is the Lord who hears. 

Preachers are not bridge-builders bravely standing in the hermeneutical gap between then and now. (How much homiletics depends on exactly this assumption??)  The living word is indeed alive (not just capable of liveliness!).  The Spirit is at work making His word lively, relevant, applied or whatever other actions the modern preacher is encouraged to take into their own hands!

.

Published on Leave a comment on The Evangelical Warrior

Had to chuckle at this from Jonny Long's Grace4Life webiste:

 

In case you can't quite make it out, it's

  • The Helmet of Pride
  • The Sword of the Tongue
  • The Shield of Defensiveness
  • The Belt of Self-Protection
  • The Breastplate of My Own Righteousness
  • The Shoes of Busyness

Which is your favourite?

Any to add?

.

Published on Leave a comment on Having a stake in your theological position

Bobby writes here about the dangers inherent in confessionalism

I particularly liked this phrase:

I’m not saying that our various traditions and confessions aren’t important, but that “our” stake in those confessions is unimportant.

It's so true that we have a stake in our theological positions and Christian labels.  We find identity in the alignments we make within the body.

This is what can make Christian blogging so darned nasty at times!  Let's be honest - there's a lot of unChristian-ness on Christian blogs.  Why?  Well a lot of it is because we're not just discussing ideas out there.  We have a stake in our positions.  We justify ourselves through our theology.  We have bought into our tribe and our tribal identity.  We know where we stand in the world because we wear the colours...  And this bozo over here is flying a different flag.  And it's so hard to hear what they say because they're not dressed up as one of you.  It's easier simply to shout out "You're a blue tribe, I'm a red tribe."  But what has that achieved?  Only to re-inforce our party-spirit, to demonize and to distract our attention from the actual content of our Christian witness.  

Paul faced exactly this with the Corithians:

"I am of Paul"  "No, no, I am of Apollos" (1 Cor 3:4).

The "I" is very prominent here. We beat our chests and find strength in our parties.  

And Paul's answer? 

"You are Christ's!" (v23) "And in Him, Paul and Apollos are yours! (v22). 

When you understand you don't belong to Christian teachers or factions but to Christ, there's a tremendous liberation.  I'm not a "red tribe" man.  I belong to Jesus.  "The LORD is my banner" (Ex 17:15)

And free from the need to beat my tribal drum I can see Paul and Apollos and Cephas for who they are - just servants of Christ.  I don't belong to them, they belong to me.  Everything they say is mine in Christ.  All their good stuff doesn't belong to them, it belong to Christ and in Christ it's mine. 

We don't have a stake in our theological positions.  We belong only to Jesus.  Every other position belongs to us. 

21 So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future--all are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.  (1 Cor 3:21-23)

 Here's a sermon of mine on exactly this point: 1 Corinthians 3

.

Published on Leave a comment on Responding to sin

How should we respond to sin in our lives?

One response is to think 'Come on Glen, I'm better than that.'

Another is to think 'Come on Glen, Christ is better than that.'

The first may produce a very moral life.  But the devil is more than happy to concede to you a Christ-less morality.  Self-righteousness is a far muddier swamp than unrighteous living.  I am not better than my sin.  I am not even better than the foulest evil I've imagined.

Instead, when I sin I am revealed as the person I've always been.  Psalm 51:5 has often struck me.  Here is David with blood on his hands.  Yet his confession is that the man who committed adultery and murder is the man he had always been.

We think when we've sinned that it was just a blot on our otherwise acceptable record.  The word of God says our sins simply express the person we have always been (Matt 7:17f). My gross sins are not 'out of character' - they are me with the hand-brake off.

No sin can shock me.  Not my own, nor the sins of my brothers and sisters who confess to me.  If the blood of God was shed for my sin (Acts 20:28) - then my sin is infinitely heinous.  No, I'm not better than sin.  But Christ is. 

This is true in two senses. 

First it's true in the sense that Christ is more desirable than sin.  In the wilderness of temptations, Satan can only offer me a bucket of salt.  Christ always stands before me with living waters (John 4:10; 7:38; Rev 7:17).  The father of lies tells me life is found in this sin.  Jesus tells me it's a broken cistern that can hold no water.  Only His waters are truly life-giving. (Jer 2:12-13)  I forsake even my precious sins because I have learnt that Jesus is more desirable.

But Christ is better than sin in another, much more important, sense.  For He is the good person that I fail to be.  He is the reality that stands before the holy Father - not my sin. 

My sin, though it clings to my bones and sinks to the depths of my heart, does not define me, Christ does.  When the Father looks to find me, He does not look in the record that stands against me (Ps 130:3; Col 2:14).  He looks to His Beloved Son and finds me hidden there. 

Which means even as the diseased tree of my flesh produces in me the very worst fruit, Christ is my Plea, my Status, my Righteousness.  Even as the chief of sinners, even in the act of my worst rebellion, Christ - the One who is infinitely better - defines me and not my sin.

So Christ is better in both these senses.  But - and here's where this post has been heading - without being utterly convinced of this latter sense, the former sense could easily lead to a Pharasaism not unlike the 'I am better than sin' response.

How so?

Well if I respond to sin simply by saying 'Jesus is more desirable' it basically throws me back on myself.  I am left with my own heart and its ability to desire Jesus.  The work of annihilating sin becomes simply my work of destroying my heart idols.  The work of liberation is simply the work of my affections desiring Christ with sufficient ardour.  Where is the locus of this redemption?  Me.

Now do my heart-idols need crucifying?  Yes.  Do I need Christ uppermost in my affections?  Yes.  But by golly, if I found it hard to reform my outward behaviour - how hard is it going to be to reform my inner world??!  Impossible.

So, you say, that's why we need the gracious work of the Spirit and diligently to employ the means of grace, etc, etc.  Well... there's a time and a place for that.  But let's think.  If that's our bottom line, doesn't it sound exactly like the Catholic view of grace?  "It's all of grace" says the Catholic "... supernatural, infused grace worked in us, with which we cooperate, making us better and better over time."  Doesn't that sound very similar to "We fight sin by enflaming our affections for Christ - flames stoked by the Spirit via His means of grace"?  

It's not that there's no place for the 'Christ is more desirable' approach.  It's that we must recognize it's true place - i.e. after we're assured of the extrinsic work of Christ.  "Grace" is not basically a supernatural empowerment to work at my salvation or to enflame my Christian affections.  "Grace" is the work of Christ alone on behalf of sinners who contribute nothing.  (This is similar to the points I made here - grace is not so much the bread David provides as the victory David wins).

Therefore my first reponse to sin is this - even in the very midst of sin, Jesus has been carrying me on His heart before the Father.  Even ensnared in the darkest selfishness, the Spirit has been calling 'Abba' from within me.  Even as my heart desired worthless idols, the Father loved me even as He loves Christ.

This is the truth that really changes us.  It reveals to us that not even our sin can separate us from the love of God in Christ.  We realize again that our darkness is not a locked basement to the Lord.  Even our self-willed rebellion cannot remove us from His embrace.  We sin in His face - this drives us down in contrition.  And at the same time He is lifting us up to the Father. 

The truth that really changes us is that our lives are not our own.  Jesus has taken possession of us in spite of ourselves and wills to do us eternal good.  The Spirit of sonship is already praying 'Abba' in you.  The affections you are so keen to enflame are already ablaze - and that, even as you quench Him!   

Now surrender.  Now be conquered. Now receive what is entirely beyond you.  And see if you don't love Him with renewed and supernatural vigour!  But don't begin with your heart for Christ.  Begin with His heart for you.

We love because He first loved us. 1 John 4:19

 .

Published on Leave a comment on Some responses

I know what you're thinking.  You're thinking 'Where's Glen been the last few days?  Why has he abandoned us?  For where else can we go to find such pithy and incisive theological tid-bits??'

Where else indeed dear reader!?

Unless of course you've been reading here and here where I've been responding to some thoughtful critiques of my Christ in the OT views.  Watch these spaces for responses to the responses.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Jonah song
 I'm preaching through Jonah this August.  Every service is all-age so I've dredged up a song I wrote a couple of years ago.  Here's how it sounds (click here for a rough recording).  And here are the words - the kids sing (shout!) all the bolded words:

.

Verse 1: 

 

God said ‘GO – to Nineveh

All those baddies I want to win-over.’

 

Jonah said ‘NO – not Nineveh

All those people are terrible sin-lovers.’

 

God said ‘GO!’

Jonah said ‘NO!’

The storm went BLOW

Jonah said ‘THROW!’

And down he GO!

Into the Depths of the Sea!

 

 

Verse 2:

 

God said GO – to a giant fish

Save my prophet before he gets smelly

 

The fish said OH what a lovely dish

Swallowed him whole so he lived in his belly

 

God said GO!

The fish swam LOW

Through the FLOW

Jonah said WHOAH!

And down he GO!

Into the belly of the fish!

 

 

Verse 3:

 

Jonah said OH – what a mess

I’ve done things my way I must confess

 

I’m so LOW – I could die

But even now God hears my cry

 

Jonah said ‘OH

You’ve brought me LOW

I’m sorry SO

Save my SOUL.’

And up he GO

Spat up onto the beach.

 

 

Verse 4:

 

God said ‘GO – once again

Nineveh needs your word to repent.’

 

Jonah said ‘OH – alright

I’ll tell them there’s Woe if they don’t get it right.’

 

So Jonah said WOE,

Cos God says ‘NO’

The people went ‘OH!

We’re sorry SO

Save our SOUL!’

And God saved every one!

 

 

Verse 5:

 

Jonah said ‘NO – I guessed

God would have mercy if they confessed.

 

‘God’s so SLOW to judge

He loves to forgive, never bears a grudge.’

 

God said ‘GO!’

Jonah said ‘NO!’

But God changed ROLE

He washed their SOUL

Whiter than SNOW

Cos God’s the best preacher of all!

 

8

Published on 8 Comments on Jesus is LORD – not Son of LORD. Some clarifications

Dave K has asked some excellent questions of my last post on this issue.  Here they are in full.  Afterwards is my attempt to address them. 

I’ve been musing on this post over the last day. This is what I have been wondering:

This is clearly right, in many passages NT writers read Jesus in OT passages saying YHWH, as well as ascribing him the same attributes, relationships etc as YHWH in the OT.

But how do you deal with the psalm in which David says ‘The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’? The NT writers here interpret ‘my lord’ to be Christ and, at least in Heb 1, ‘the LORD’ as ‘God’. In a way I expect you would draw on what you say that ‘there is more than one Person called LORD’. But is there a danger here that we flatten the relationship between the two persons and lose the clear emphasis of the bible that Jesus receives his authority from the Father. So while he is never called the Son of the LORD, he is called the Son of God.

Also I wonder if there how you would demonstrate that in the OT ‘most often “Lord” refers to the Son’. To me it seems that this is far from clear, and while it is clear that ‘more than one Person called LORD’ in the OT, it is not so clear that you can always confidently identify which person is being referred to. In fact, often it seems that the Trinity and one person of the Trinity is in view.

Thirdly, how confident can we be that NT references to Jesus as lord are primarily about identifying with YHWH, and not the Davidic messiah? Both are obviously in view but, again, it is a lot more murky to me than you I think.

Dave

…nervous that his attachment to the murkiness is diluting Jesus’ claims, but still struggling with the revelation of the Trinity in the OT.

 

Let me begin by trying to say a bit better what I said quite obscurely in my last post.

To say "Jesus is the Son of the God of the Old Testament" is technically true.  The Father (and the Spirit) were equally active in the OT and, just as in the NT, Jesus has always been Son of God Most High.  However it must give us pause for thought that Jesus is never called "Son of the LORD."  Instead He is consistently called LORD.  I believe that Jesus and the Apostles are telling us not simply that "Jesus is ontologically equal to the God of Israel" but that "Jesus is and always has been the God of Israel."  ie not just "Jesus has the same status, dignity and attributes as Yahweh" but that "He is and always has been Yahweh.  Here is the One who brought the Israelites out of Egypt etc"  (cf Jude 4,5)

Some further thoughts in no particular order:

  • There could be a number of reasons why NT says Jesus is the referent of OT passages saying YHWH.

   1) The second Person of the trinity was not the original referent but He is equal to the original referent (""God"") and so deserves the title.

   2) The second Person of the trinity was the original referent.

 I go for number 2) because:

A) I find the second solution much more straightforward (to be honest I find the first solution really quite strange.) 

B) I think the pre-existence of Jesus is not just a 'being' issue but a 'doing' issue.  John 5 says Jesus has been working from the beginning with His Father.  I just find it odd to say the Father was the hero of the OT while Jesus only becomes the hero in the second half.  I'm not sure that takes His pre-existence (and equal deity) seriously enough as an equality of doing as well as being.

C) I see number 2 taught in places like like Hebrews 1 ("About the Son He says...")

Basically I think that either 1) or 2) could, once assumed, account for the NT data but that actually 2) is taught.  I can't think of where 1) is taught.

  • The equation of "Jesus is Kurios" as "Jesus is YHWH" seems to me the most obvious meaning if we simply let the bible interpret the bible.  (I don't know about you but I get frustrated when commentators immediately go to Caeser Kurios as the equivalent of Jesus is Lord.  As though the Roman Empire is a more important interpretive context than the OT!?)

Certainly, as you note, the NT cites OT references to YHWH and applies them straight to Christ.  I think the 'I AM' statements also function as straightforward claims to being YHWH (see esp John 8:56-58). 

To say that 'Lord' could simply refer to the 'Davidic Messiah' begs the question about how the Israelites were to understand the High Priest at God's right hand (see the points below).  Certainly people like Philo called him the 'deuteros theos' - the second God!  And Jesus considered the Adonai of Ps 110 to be a far more exalted title than Davidic King (Mk 12:35-37).   

At the end of the day I think that a person reading the Septuagint would get a pretty good idea of what kurios meant (6818 times YHWH!)  When they turned to the Gospels they would be introduced to John the Baptist who prepared the way for the LORD (ho kurios) who was this man called Jesus.  And as they kept reading they'd see ho kurios now eating at a Pharisee's house (Luke 11:39) etc etc.  And on they'd go.  I propose that if they were reading it according to its natural sense they would simply exclaim: "The Lord God of Israel is among us"

 

  • As for how to prove that "Lord" refers predominantly to the Son, I'd say, first of all, that's virtually undisputed when it comes to NT.  But I also think the NT teaches a similar expectation for reading the OT.  When 1 Cor 8:6 says "for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" OT usage (esp Deut 6:4) is almost certainly in view.

But I suppose you're only likely to be persuaded that LORD is mostly used of the Son in the OT if you agree with my take on Christ in the OT.  Basically I'd say that the One Word and Image of God Most High has been the eternal Mediator of all the Father's business (John 1:18).  He is the One walking in the garden, the One who appears to Abraham, who wrestles with Jacob, who brings Israel out of Egypt etc etc.  It takes 70 chapters of the bible before we are brought to the Unseen LORD on Sinai, yet we have been led by the Appearing LORD throughout.  It is He who has been revealing the divine name to us, even as this name has been given Him by the Father (Ex 23:21).  Given that this is just the same dynamic as the NT then in both testaments my default supposition is that 'Lord' refers to the Son unless proved otherwise.  Following this pattern, there's many passages that I'm confused about in the OT.  But there's also a few in the New too.  (What's going on in 2 Cor 3:16-18??)

 

  • I hear you on not flattening the distinctions between Persons!  I'm the last person to want to do that!  And the truth that Jesus is fully divine in His obedience to / dependence upon the Father is a glorious truth (with much gospel comfort actually - maybe that's for another post).

 But I also think that this truth is as much an OT as a NT truth.

So, it's as the Angel sent from the LORD (Ex 3:2) that He is the great I AM (v14) who will bring people to God (v12)

It's as the Most Excellent of Men that the Bridegroom Warrior is anointed King by God, His God (Psalm 45:6-7)

It's as the Priest at God's right hand that He is Lord. (Psalm 110)

So I affirm absolutely that His deity includes and is expressed in His dependence and difference from the Father.  I would add that this is the OT's teaching as much as the New.  And I also affirm that it's technically true that Jesus is Son of the LORD who is the Father (since all three Persons can take that name).  But the real issue is whether the Sent One of the Gospels is claiming to be the Sent One of the Torah.  This is my claim.

Jesus is the LORD who remembers meeting Abraham (John 8:56-58), who led Israel out of Egypt (Jude 4,5) and who appeared to Isaiah (John 12:40,41).  He's not simply closely related to the God of Israel.  He is the God of Israel.  And there's no better way for the NT to affirm that than to simply say Jesus is LORD.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer