Category: Uncategorized
Who will be the next Apprentice??
Could you be the next apprentice at my church - All Souls, Eastbourne? We can offer training through the South Coast Ministerial Training Course and plenty of hands-on experience. Great church, great people - join us! (btw we're looking to hire more than one).
Send me an email if you're interested.
.
Christ in the Old Testament 13
Ok, let's continue with this issue of the NT's handling of the Old.
If we take the reformation cry of sola Scriptura at all seriously we must allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. Historical-grammatical hermeneutics, archaeology, even the most careful exegesis conducted by the best scholarship must all bow to God's own word. He determines His meaning. He is the only fit witness to Himself.
Yet, in contemporary Biblical studies it is commonly said of New Testament writers that they re-interpret the meaning of Old Testament Scripture. Thus, it is asserted that an Old Testament passage can be shown conclusively to mean one thing via a thorough application of historical-grammatical hermeneutics, and then when Jesus or an Apostle quote from it they invest it with a new Christological meaning. Diligent exegesis yields one reading, the New Testament gives another. Yet rather than bow to the Apostles and re-think their methods of exegesis, these Bible students assert without any New Testament support that these two meanings co-exist in the text. Thus it is routinely suggested that Jesus and the Apostles did not faithfully exegete the Hebrew Scriptures (defined by contemporary models) but rather, with special license from the Holy Spirit, made Christological assertions that are not derived from exegesis itself. Their treatment of the Old Testament is therefore not to be emulated. What we primarily learn from their handling is the audacious apostolic authority invested in them.
But what if we were to take Jesus and the Apostles as our models in the Christian life? (radical thought!). If we do that we'll see that the New Testament does not model a two-level exegesis of the kind: ‘David said ‘X', but now we can re-read this through Christian eyes as ‘Y''. The New Testament simply says Abraham met Christ (John 8:56). It states boldly that Isaiah saw Jesus (John 12:41). It asserts that David looked ahead to the resurrection and spoke explicitly of Christ (Acts 2:31). It declares that Christ saved the people out of Egypt and accompanied them in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4,9; Heb 11:26; Jude 5). The New Testament does not say ‘Abraham had an experience which we can now re-interpret as ‘meeting Christ''. It does not say ‘Isaiah saw a vision which Christian eyes know to be Jesus'. It does not say, ‘David looked to types of Christ later fulfilled in His Person'. It does not say, ‘retrospectively we can see signs and types of Jesus of which the Israelites were unaware but which manifested a Christ-like presence in their midst.' Yet how often is the OT handles in this way?
If you continue, I've listed a number of New Testament texts which handle the Old Testament. Just see the way New Testament writers read the Old. Only the Bible can teach us to handle the Bible. If we do not read the Old Testament the way these men did - we are wrong. We must change. Let these examples challenge our own reading of the Scriptures.
The Allah of the Quran is not the God of the Bible
These are thoughts that I've been sharing over at Between Two Worlds on a post called Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammed?
My answer? Of course not. Here are some points in no particular order:
1) Let's let Allah define himself:
"He does not beget nor is he begotten." (Sura 112)
The Quran defines the god of Islam explicitly as not the God of the Bible. Let's respect Muslims enough to let them define who their god is. He is not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We honour their faith by speaking of Allah as another god - that is how Allah defines himself. From our perspective we cannot speak of Allah as anything other than an idol - anything else fails to take Muslim faith on its own terms.
2) Can anyone really imagine the prophets addressing the Edomites, Philistines etc saying 'Yahweh is very much like Baal/Molech/Asherah'??! Never!
The question for the nations is not 'Do you believe in God?' But 'What god do you believe in?' Whether you're evangelizing in north Africa or north America "God" cannot be assumed. In fact "God" is the least obvious word in our evangelistic encounters. How on earth do we get to a position where people make it the point of commonality!
.
At this point a commenter replied that the 'Baal' analogies do not work because Allah is thought to be 'the transcendent Creator' and not simply a power within the world. He claimed that a Muslim convert would have to repent of many beliefs but not his belief in 'God as infinite transcendent Creator.'
To this I replied...
3) We don't say "Baal is called 'Lord' and receives worship therefore no convert from Baalism needs to repent of their notions of Lorship or worship." Of course they will have to repent of all of this. So then why would anyone claim that a belief in the 'infinite transcendent Creator' is of a different order? Fundamentally I see this as committing two errors. It is to say...
A) 'Transcendent Creator' is more foundational to God's being than His triunity.
B) The Muslim means roughly the same as the Christian when speaking of the 'Transcendent Creator'
I strongly disagree with both.
A) i) If God is transcendent Creator you've made Him dependent on creation.
A) ii) It is a position that leads to Arianism. Athanasius complained that Arius' error was to conceive of God as Unoriginate and then to consider trinity. On this trajectory he could never affirm the homo-ousios of One whose being was 'ek tes ousia tw patri' (out of the being of the Father). Similarly if your conversation with a Muslim begins with some 'bedrock' notion of transcendence before introducing them to Jesus it will necessarily mean introducing them to one who is less than the transcendent one. You'll have shot yourself in the foot from the very beginning. Let's not define Jesus out of full deity before we've even begun. We therefore must not begin on the Arian trajectory of affirming transcendent Creator first - Jesus will not come out very well from such a starting point!
B) Only the God who exists as Himself in relations of otherness can actually have a relationship with creation in which we can know Him as transcendent. 'Transcendent Creator' is dependent on trinity (not the other way around). The Muslim account of transcendence is completely confused (as is every unitarian account). Allah is a prisoner of his 'transcendence' - by definition cut off from any relationship with it (whether transcendent or immanent).
'Transcendent Creator' is neither the foundational nor a shared understanding of the living God. And it's not desirable that it should be.
.
At this point my interlocutor (rightly) suspected I was denying the possiblity of true philosophical reflection on divinity apart from Christian revelation. He claimed I was being overly Barthian ;-) I replied with these points...
4) In terms of theological method, "Christ alone" is not a Barthian novelty! It's difficult to think of a more crucial verse in the history of the church for theological method than Matthew 11:27: "No-one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him."
To this let's add John 1:18; 14:6 and Colossians 1:15. To this let's add the continual Scriptural witness that we are blind, dead, enemies of God unable to know Him apart from His Word to us. (e.g. Ps 14:2; 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:21). These plain and central truths cannot be evaded by crying 'Barthian'!
5) Nicea's "The Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth" was a deliberate and crucial choice of order. Triunity precedes creation. Of course it does - unless we want to define God as dependent upon creation.
6) Even Jews who have the Scriptures do not know the Father if they reject the Son. (cf ALL OF JOHN'S GOSPEL!)
7) To go over a previous point - there are tremendous Arian dangers of considering 'Creator' more foundational than trinity. Once you have assured your Muslim friend that she really does know God and that the God she knows is definitionally the infinite, transcendent Creator, do you really think you've helped her towards faith in Jesus of Nazareth?? Have you not just given her every reason to reject divine honours (thus defined) being attributed to Christ. Won't she simply thank you for confirming her own doctrine of God which by definition precludes Jesus from being anything more than a prophet??
Athanasius rightly said 'the only system of thought into which Jesus Christ will fit is the one in which He is the starting point.'
The Rock upon which we build is nothing and no-one else but Christ. Let's be clearer on this whether we're evangelizing Muslims or our friends in the pub. They do not know God and besides - why would we want to confirm for them a sterile, non-relational doctrine of God in the first place?? Let's tell them, 'The god you had thought existed was not God - let me tell you about the living God who is unlike anything you've imagined. His name is Jesus and He blows your god out of the water!'
.
The Flesh
In thinking of Substitutes for the Spirit I was surprised at how many I came up with. But then again, we all know what the Scripture says is the antithesis to the Spirit. Therefore we know that susbtitutes for the Spirit can be summed up in one word - flesh. Thus we know
-
These substitutes will be with us from cradle to grave
-
They will stick to us like skin to our bones
-
They will pervade every area of life
-
They will be selfish alternatives to everything the Spirit is trying to lead us to
-
They will seem far more natural than the Spirit-led path
-
They will appear as a counterfeit Spirit-led path - (not every spirit is from God!)
In fact they will appear as the seemingly harmless desire to serve myself - whether in moral or immoral ways. And so they are at war with my soul. (1 Pet 2:11). It's often occured to me that maturity in the Christian life consists largely of identifying these desires of the flesh as precisely that.
We can identify Spirit-led passions. They will be:
-
Christ-centred
-
Word-based
-
other-focussed
-
cross-shaped
How are we to identify fleshly thinking? Ephesians 4:22 is interesting:
You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires
Three questions occur to me regarding the 'old self' / flesh:
-
What are the desires of your flesh? What exactly is the 'old self' telling you about what you need / what you should pursue?
-
How is this old self deceiving you? Phrase the desire as a blatant lie: e.g. "Your identity/worth/righteousness lies in people thinking you're funny/attractive/clever/'helpful'."
-
How has this fleshly existence corrupted you? Think how ugly it has made you.
Always, though, the underlying pursuit/lie/corruption of the flesh is my attempt to establish a righteousness of my own. (Phil 3:1-11). Ultimately the flesh tells me to be justified before heaven and earth on my own account. Therefore the power which alone is able to mortify my flesh is the gospel. Because the gospel tells me 'Before and apart from any works, I am clothed in Christ. My whole identity, status, reputation, past, present and future is taken out of my hands and hidden entirely in Christ.'
I was crucified with Christ and I no longer live but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me. (Gal 2:20)
To live by this gospel word is to live by the Spirit. And it is to crucify the flesh.
.
Substitutes for the Spirit
We have endless substitutes for the actual, dynamic, personal presence of the Spirit in our thinking. Here's a sketch of just a few off the top of my head.
Of course, many or all of these are means by which the Spirit works. Yet if they are cut off from the Source they have no life in them:
.
Doctrine of Omnipotence
An a-topic, abstract power is assigned to God, equivalent to a similarly ill-defined notion called ‘sovereignty'. This is all rather than the active and immanent Person who is God's Power - the Spirit of Christ.
.
Doctrine of Omnipresence
‘God is everywhere' becomes a substitute for the indwelling personal presence of the Spirit
.
Doctrine of Omniscience
This happens, for instance, when the living nature of the Spirit-breathed Word is replaced by a doctrine of God's omniscience in the original authorship of the Bible. What is side-lined is a doctrine of the Spirit as the Dei loquentis persona (God speaking in person). Instead the spotlight falls on God's omniscience in inspiring the text thousands of years ago such that it would speak to every generation. A fossilization of the living word?
.
Assurance found in moral performance.
Romans 8:16 says ‘the Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.' Few preachers I hear teach that we should seek our assurance in the fellowship we have with the Spirit. Usually we're encouraged to look to our works.
.
Fellowship of believers
The fellowship of the Holy Spirit' (2 Cor 13:4) is not a Spirit-generated church-fellowship! Yet so many take it in this way. No, just as the love of God is an enjoyment of God in His love and just as the grace of Christ is an enjoyment of Christ in His grace, so the fellowship of the Holy Spirit is fellowship with the Spirit!
.
‘Now but not yet'.
We often speak of this age (truly) in terms of absence and in-between-ness. We live in between the comings of Christ. This is all absolutely correct and vitally important. But let's not forget the presence! This is the age of the Spirit. The Spirit's presence is the 'now' in the 'now-and-not-yet'. Let's remember Jesus said 'It is for your good I am going away... if I go I will send Him to you'! (John 16:7).
.
Fruit of the Spirit
At one time I was praying through the fruit of the Spirit from Galatians 5 and using these nine characteristics as a moral checklist. I confessed my lack of fruit and prayed for more. One day I was doing this and got a picture in my mind of the Holy Spirit coming to my door laden with a big basket of fruit and me saying to Him 'Thanks Spirit, just leave the fruit and I'll see you later.' I was praying for fruit when I should really have been praying for the Spirit Himself. These fruit grow organically from a relationship with Him. Let's desire Him and not simply His gifts.
.
Application in preaching
So much preaching advice assumes that it's the preacher's job to bridge the gap between text and congregation. Surely it is the Spirit's work to drive home the Word to our hearts! How often preaching is thought to really live when the preacher 'applies' the text to Monday morning and the 'nitty-gritty' of life. Yet the Spirit, in living power, makes the Word alive and applies it to our lives in ways more nuanced, powerful and incisive than any preacher could.
.
Human advice
In the realm of guidance
.
Human aptitude
In the realm of gifts
.
Apologetics
In the realm of evangelism
.
Strategy
In the realm of Kingdom-work
.
Oratory skill
In the realm of preaching
.
Grammatical-historical method.
Text critical tools give the meaning of the Bible, not the Author Himself
.
Any more we can add to the list?
.
Any help?
I'm preaching on Sunday with the title Why the Cross? (I think the whole 'Why can't God just forgive?' question is behind the choice of topic). What should I say?
.
Blog mouth
A few months ago I commented on a blog about Christian kids songs. I mentioned speaking to an author about the lyrics of one of his better known songs. Since this conversation happened 7 years ago, my memory of it was very sketchy (I even mistook his name for someone else's when it was mentioned). But it didn't stop me blogging with abandon on his theology as represented by the placing of a single comma (I kid not!). How lame am I?
Anyway, to cut a long story short, the said author found my comments and a) can't remember ever speaking to me, b) meant the opposite of how I'd represented him on the blog.
Lessons?
-
Blogs are public! They will be read by people who know, or people who know the people who know.
-
"The tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts." (James 3:5a) Boasting was at the heart of this: "I once spoke to a song-writer - and I knew better" Pathetic.
-
The verse goes on "Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark." (James 3:5b). The author in question was very good about it, but the potential for hurt is so huge.
So, all us smart-alec, proud, young male bloggers - let's think before we blog.
.
Trusting God's Sovereignty – Trusting God's Son
When times are tough - what is your comfort? When comforting others, where do you point them?
In the circles in which I move the encouragements of choice involve variations on the theme of 'God's got a plan.' Many's the time when a well-meaning brother (usually a brother) has said 'I guess at moments like this, all you can do is cling onto God's sovereignty.' Often I've heard friends say that only sovereignty has enabled them to get through the hard times.
Something's gone wrong here. 1.5 billion Muslims navigate through life clinging onto 'insh'Allah' (God willing). 800 million Hindus believe that karma will work everything out. And how many westerners, even in the face of terrible suffering, will still believe 'everything happens for a reason.'
This was really brought home to me about 5 years ago. I was praying with a new convert from Islam. We were worried about his visa application, but I was amazed at how he was 'trusting God's sovereignty'. In fact he was using language that I usually associate with the most mature of reformed Christians. I told him I was very impressed, he shrugged his shoulders and said 'In Pakistan we have a saying: 'God willing' - it means that whatever God wills will happen.' Insh'Allah had simply been translated to a Christian environment. Yet surely a Christian account of sovereignty involves more than simply transfering deterministic agency from Allah to the Father! Surely there's got to be a gospel-shape, a Christ-focus, a trinitarian dynamic to Christian sovereignty. Yet what was so striking about my friend's translated insh'Allah was that it sounded so completely like the Christian pastoral wisdom sketched out above.
Two years ago I went to northern Nigeria and the difference between Muslim and Christian accounts of sovereignty struck me again. When I wanted something done by Tuesday, the Muslim would tell me 'It will be ready, insh'Allah'. The Christian would tell me, 'It will be ready, if Jesus tarries.' Hallelujah!! Isn't that brilliant?? (King James' English lives on in Nigeria!). But isn't there all the difference in the world between a future determined by an inscrutible divine will and a future opened up in the gospel-patience of Jesus? I've tried to get people using 'If Jesus tarries' over here, but it hasn't taken. Yet.
Now I'm not denying for a second the sovereign rule of the Father through the Son and by the Spirit. And perhaps in future posts I'll outline some thoughts on what a truly gospel-shaped, Christ-focused, dynamically-trinitarian account of sovereignty might look like. But for now I will simply question the pastoral wisdom of referring the suffering Christian to the sovereignty of God as though 'God's in charge' was the sum and substance of the Christian hope.
All too often this amounts to a 'light at the end of the tunnel' comfort. How much better to encourage a person that Christ joins them in the tunnel.
I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings. (Philippians 3:10)
Christ is with us in suffering. He is especially near to the broken-hearted. As Spurgeon used to say, He never throws His children in the fire without joining them in it (cf Dan. 3; Isaiah 43:2). In suffering we get to know the Suffering Servant with greater depth and intimacy than ever before. To simply point to the God over and above us in suffering is deficient. We must also point to the God beside and within us.
The gospel is not the truth that, while I may be buried in muck, God remains untouched in pristine glory and one day I'll be there with Him. The gospel is that God joins us in the muck. The gospel is that He stoops, sympathises and suffers alongside us. And that He raises us with Him to the throne. But if the gospel is not that God remains in heaven and we battle on till glory, why does so much of our pastoral exhortation betray exactly such a 'gospel.'
Why do we so often point people to God's sovereignty and so rarely point them to God's Son? Why is the focus on the light at the end of the tunnel and so little on the One who joins us in the darkness? The one kind of exhortation produces tight-lipped soldiers, the other produces broken-hearted lovers. Let's aim for the latter!
.
Trusting God’s Sovereignty – Trusting God’s Son
When times are tough - what is your comfort? When comforting others, where do you point them?
In the circles in which I move the encouragements of choice involve variations on the theme of 'God's got a plan.' Many's the time when a well-meaning brother (usually a brother) has said 'I guess at moments like this, all you can do is cling onto God's sovereignty.' Often I've heard friends say that only sovereignty has enabled them to get through the hard times.
Something's gone wrong here. 1.5 billion Muslims navigate through life clinging onto 'insh'Allah' (God willing). 800 million Hindus believe that karma will work everything out. And how many westerners, even in the face of terrible suffering, will still believe 'everything happens for a reason.'
This was really brought home to me about 5 years ago. I was praying with a new convert from Islam. We were worried about his visa application, but I was amazed at how he was 'trusting God's sovereignty'. In fact he was using language that I usually associate with the most mature of reformed Christians. I told him I was very impressed, he shrugged his shoulders and said 'In Pakistan we have a saying: 'God willing' - it means that whatever God wills will happen.' Insh'Allah had simply been translated to a Christian environment. Yet surely a Christian account of sovereignty involves more than simply transfering deterministic agency from Allah to the Father! Surely there's got to be a gospel-shape, a Christ-focus, a trinitarian dynamic to Christian sovereignty. Yet what was so striking about my friend's translated insh'Allah was that it sounded so completely like the Christian pastoral wisdom sketched out above.
Two years ago I went to northern Nigeria and the difference between Muslim and Christian accounts of sovereignty struck me again. When I wanted something done by Tuesday, the Muslim would tell me 'It will be ready, insh'Allah'. The Christian would tell me, 'It will be ready, if Jesus tarries.' Hallelujah!! Isn't that brilliant?? (King James' English lives on in Nigeria!). But isn't there all the difference in the world between a future determined by an inscrutible divine will and a future opened up in the gospel-patience of Jesus? I've tried to get people using 'If Jesus tarries' over here, but it hasn't taken. Yet.
Now I'm not denying for a second the sovereign rule of the Father through the Son and by the Spirit. And perhaps in future posts I'll outline some thoughts on what a truly gospel-shaped, Christ-focused, dynamically-trinitarian account of sovereignty might look like. But for now I will simply question the pastoral wisdom of referring the suffering Christian to the sovereignty of God as though 'God's in charge' was the sum and substance of the Christian hope.
All too often this amounts to a 'light at the end of the tunnel' comfort. How much better to encourage a person that Christ joins them in the tunnel.
I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings. (Philippians 3:10)
Christ is with us in suffering. He is especially near to the broken-hearted. As Spurgeon used to say, He never throws His children in the fire without joining them in it (cf Dan. 3; Isaiah 43:2). In suffering we get to know the Suffering Servant with greater depth and intimacy than ever before. To simply point to the God over and above us in suffering is deficient. We must also point to the God beside and within us.
The gospel is not the truth that, while I may be buried in muck, God remains untouched in pristine glory and one day I'll be there with Him. The gospel is that God joins us in the muck. The gospel is that He stoops, sympathises and suffers alongside us. And that He raises us with Him to the throne. But if the gospel is not that God remains in heaven and we battle on till glory, why does so much of our pastoral exhortation betray exactly such a 'gospel.'
Why do we so often point people to God's sovereignty and so rarely point them to God's Son? Why is the focus on the light at the end of the tunnel and so little on the One who joins us in the darkness? The one kind of exhortation produces tight-lipped soldiers, the other produces broken-hearted lovers. Let's aim for the latter!
.