Home

Sundays

• Readings

Find us

Contact us

Resources

About

• Leadership
• What we believe

Sermons

• Browse by book
• Sermon Archive

Minister’s Blog

• Blog Archive

Guided Reading Course

Recent Sermons

• Authority and Responsibility (5) The State
• The Way of Wisdom (3) God and your Xbox360
• The Way of Wisdom (2) God and your Mobile
• The Way of Wisdom (1) – God and the iPad
• Luke 6:1-16, Wipe that smile off your face – it’s Sunday

Recent Blog Posts

• Let’s try that again…
• Proclaim Freedom
• A humbling and enlightening exercise
• 14. Free Will
• 29. Covenant and Election

RT @wyclif: “Human life without knowledge of history is nothing other than a perpetual childhood, nay, a permanent obscurity and darknes ... 3 hours ago

Minister's Blog

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Crushing heads - 12 December 2011

Anyone interested in understanding more about the development of themes within the biblical narrative (and that should certainly include those students who are coming to the end of the first year of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course) should take a look at this essay by James Hamilton, entitled “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15.”

Anyone who’s read much by James B. Jordan will be unlikely to find much new here. But Hamilton does the painstaking (and very helpful) work of crossing i’s and dotting t’s that Jordan deliberately leaves out in his outstanding book Through New Eyes. The two approaches therefore compliment each other very well.

Bowing in the Temple of Rimmon - 9 December 2011

Here is the assignment following the seventh tutorial in the newly-launched Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. How do the eleven questions in the section of the notes headed “Some questions to clarify the situation under consideration” shed light on the actions found or described in the following texts, where someone is (implicitly or otherwise) either commended or criticised for their response to another person’s sin?

a. 2 Kings 5:17-19. Naaman is excused for bowing down in the Temple of Rimmon when his master sinfully bows while leaning on his arm.

b. Nehemiah 13:23-25. Nehemiah responds with considerable vigour to the sinful intermarriages between Israelites and their Pagan neighbours.

c. Psalm 1. This Psalm forbids some forms of association (walk … stand … sit) with some sinful people. You may find it helpful to reflect also on the following texts: Proverbs 13:20; 22:24-25; 24:21-22; 29:24.

d. Acts 12:21-23. Herod is struck down when he “did not give God the glory” after the people shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not a man!”

e. 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. Paul instructs the Corinthians “not to associate” with certain people, while not forbidding association with others.

Note: I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Brief notes or bullets points are fine.

Illegal abortions - 9 December 2011

Roughly 200,000 abortions take place in the UK each year. The legal justification for about 98% of these is that they are necessary to safeguard the mental health of the mother.

However, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has released the results of new research, regarded as “the most comprehensive and systematic review to date into the link between abortion and mental health problems.” This research ” has confirmed that women who have an unplanned pregnancy are at an increased risk of experiencing mental health problems after an abortion” (source: Christian Concern).

In other words, far from improving the mental health of the mother, an abortion is likely to worsen it.

These results imply, furthermore, that the “mental health” grounds for abortion can no longer be justified in law, since they are not supported by the best medical evidence. For doctors to authorise abortions on this basis, according to Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship, would be illegal.

25. Covenant theology (2) - 7 December 2011

Introduction

In session 25 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’re continuing our study of Covenant Theology, the next part of our study of the doctrine of salvation, as we work through O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). You’ll recall from the previous session that covenant theology is a way of reading the whole Bible that takes into account the unfolding shape of God’s work in the world and his unfolding relationship with humanity. This relationship always takes the form of a covenant, and Covenant Theology attempts to trace the development of these covenants through Scripture.

Last week we looked at the theme of the divine covenants in general terms. This week we’ll be starting to look more closely at some specific biblical covenants, beginning with the so-called “Covenant of Creation,” made with Adam before the fall.

There are quite a lot of pages to read here. However, as you’ll remember from the first couple of sessions, you don’t have to spend an equal amount of time on every sentence in a book. In the notes that follow I’ll try to help you to work out which bits to focus on and which bits to skip over more quickly. These chapters will test your ability to read selectively and vigorously, and to avoid getting bogged down in the details. Remember: the questions are there to help you.

As ever, don’t worry if you’re pressed for time; just omit the questions marked with a *. We will be able to pick up any loose threads in the tutorial.

Outline

• Recap: biblical theology to systematic soteriology
• Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, chs 5-8

Questions for reflection

i. Someone asks, “How can you justify the Canaanite genocides described in the book of Joshua?” How would you reply?

ii. Someone says, “Evangelism is the most important thing – we need to spend less time thinking Christianly about art, culture, work, education and family life; and more time saving souls.” How would you respond?

Study questions

Chapter 5 discusses the “covenant of creation,” made with Adam in Genesis 1. After a brief introduction Robertson discusses its so-called “general aspect” (pp. 68-81) and “focal aspect” (pp. 81-86). Don’t be put off by the unfamiliar terminology; the ideas are quite simple.

I encourage you to skim quite quickly through this chapter, in order to get a general picture of what Robertson is saying without getting too bogged down in the details. We’ll have plenty of time for further discussion in the tutorial.

1. What is the “covenant of creation” (p. 67)? What does Robertson mean by its “general aspect” (pp. 68-81) and “focal aspect” (pp. 81-86)?

2. Robertson is concerned that “the broader responsibilities of man as created in God’s image [which he calls the “general aspects” of the covenant of creation] frequently have been ignored” (pp. 67-68). What does he mean by this? What would be the consequences of such an emphasis of the “focal aspect” of the covenant of creation (see especially pp. 81-83)?

For reflection: Do you think that the “general aspects” of the covenant of creation are given due weight in contemporary evangelicalism?

In chapter 6 (part 3 of the book), Robertson begins his discussion of what he calls “the covenant of redemption,” by which he means God’s plan to overturn the effects of sin, to redeem his people, and to accomplish his original purposes for us. As he explains on p. 93, the covenant of redemption begins with God’s words to the serpent, Eve and Adam in Genesis 3:14-19.

3. “From the very outset, God intends by the covenant of redemption to realise for man those blessings originally defaulted under the covenant of redemption” (p. 91). What does Robertson mean by this?

For reflection: What implications follow from Robertson’s claim here? (Consider particularly what follows if we take into account the “general aspects” of the covenant of creation.)

Chapter 6 is divided into three main sections, each of which discusses a different section of Genesis 3:14-19:

• The Word to Satan (Genesis 3:14-15; pp. 93-103)
• The Word to the Woman (Genesis 3:16; pp. 103-104)
• The Word to the Man (Genesis 3:17-19; pp. 105-107)

4. Read Genesis 3:14-15. How would you summarise the basic message of God’s word to Satan in these verses?

5. Who, according to Robertson, is Satan’s “seed” (p. 98)? What biblical data does Robertson adduce to support his conclusion (pp. 99-103)?

6. Does this section shed any light on the battles between Israel and the Canaanites (which Robertson calls “the cherem-warfare of Joshua’s day,” p. 102)?

7. What curse is contained in God’s word to the woman (p. 103)? What blessing is contained (pp. 103-104)?

8. What curse is contained in God’s word to the man (p. 105-106)? What blessing is contained (pp. 105-106)?

Chapter 7 discusses God’s covenant with Noah, “the covenant of preservation.” Don’t worry too much about the extended discussion of capital punishment on pp. 117-121.

9. What six characteristics of the covenant with Noah does Robertson identify (pp. 110-125)?

For reflection: Think about each of these aspects of the covenant with Noah. In each case, ask yourself (a) whether you agree with Robertson; (b) what implications might follow if he is right (or indeed if he is wrong). Think in particular about the first, third and fifth aspects.

Robertson turns in chapter 8 to the Abrahamic covenant, which he calls “the covenant of promise”.

10. What important features of the Abrahamic covenant does Robertson identify on pp. 127-128?

11. Robertson discusses the formal inauguration ceremony of the Abrahamic covenant on pp. 128-130, before asking the question, “What is the meaning of this striking ceremony?” (P. 130). What is the answer to this question?

On pp. 131-137 Robertson discusses several OT allusions to the Abrahamic covenant ceremony. Don’t worry too much about this. However, if you have time, you might like to consider the following question for reflection:

For reflection: How is the imagery of “the birds of the air/heavens/sky” employed in the biblical passages quoted on pp. 135-137? Why do you think Jesus uses this imagery in Mark 4:32?

10. The Trinity (2) - 7 December 2011

Introduction

We’re continuing our study of the doctrine of the Trinity in session 10 of the Guided Reading Course, looking this week at parts of chapter 6 of Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2. This is a long chapter, but don’t worry – we’re not going to be trying to read all of it.

We’re building on the material from Berkhof and Calvin from the previous session, exploring in more detail some of the exegetical basis (especially from the Old Testament), historical background, and theological and philosophical nuances of this doctrine.

You almost certainly won’t have time to study the whole chapter in detail, so don’t try to. Indeed, I’ve not even set any questions on the second half of the chapter. As always, let the questions be your guide as to where your attention should be directed. The questions focus on pp. 261-264, 280-290 and 298-299.

If you’re pressed for time, miss out the questions marked with a *.

Questions for reflection

i. This week we’ll spend quite a lot of time tracing the development of theological ideas through the centuries. Before you begin, spend a few minutes reminding yourself why it’s so very worthwhile thinking about what a bunch of dead guys thought, even if they were wrong. (If you find it helpful, write some of these reasons down.)

Study Questions

The first two questions are about the exegetical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament.

1. Where in the OT does Bavinck find “seeds” of trinitarian doctrine (pp. 261-264)? What do you think of this exegesis? You might find it helpful to consider the following elements in particular:

• the plural form of the name “Elohim” (p. 261);
• God’s works of creation and providence by his Word and his Spirit (pp. 261-262);
• the texts mentioned on p. 264 that indicate “self-differentiation in the divine being.” (These texts are included for your convenience at the end of these questions, but don’t forget to check the context where appropriate).

2. How did the following people explain the OT appearances of “the angel of the LORD” (pp. 262-263)?

• The church fathers before Augustine (p. 262)
• Augustine (p. 262)
• Luther and Calvin (p. 263)

*For reflection: Can you explain why “the later church fathers” (p. 263) opposed the view of the church fathers before Augustine?

3. How does Bavinck explain the OT appearances of “the angel of the LORD” (p. 263)?

Pages 264-279 discuss trinitarian ideas found in intertestamental Judaism (which isn’t very relevant to our study) and the exegetical basis of the doctrine in the New Testament (which is highly relevant but probably quite familiar to you). Don’t worry too much about this material at this stage.

The next four questions are about the historical development of trinitarian doctrine in the early centuries of the church, beginning with the early church Fathers (question 3), through the contributions of Nicea (question 4), Athanasius (question 5) and Augustine (question 6).

3. What distinctive contributions to the doctrine of the Trinity were made by the following people? In each case, try to identify why they got right, and where they went wrong.

• the Apostolic Fathers (p. 280)
• Justin Martyr (pp. 280-283)
• Irenaeus (p. 283)
• Tertullian (pp. 283-284)
• Origen (p. 284-285).

4. What judgment(s) did the church make at the Council of Nicaea about previous trinitarian reflection (p. 285)?

5. How does Athanasius articulate the distinctions between the divine persons without denying their deity (pp. 285-286)? How does his understanding of the divine attributes help him to articulate the relationships between the divine persons?

6. What, according to Bavinck, was Augustine’s “starting point” (p. 287)?

7. Some people have claimed that Augustine’s starting-point (the one, simple, uncompounded essence of God) undermines the importance of personal distinctions within the Godhead? Does Bavinck agree? Why or why not?

The next question is about Arianism and Sabellianism, two of the most significant trinitarian heresies.

8. What are the distinctive features of Arianism (p. 289) and Sabellianism (p. 290)? Do any of the tenets of Arianism sound familiar? (You might want to read through pp. 291-296 too, but don’t get bogged down here.)

Pages 296-298 contain a useful, but rather daunting, discussion of the theological vocabulary that came into use during the development of trinitarian theology. It’s worth looking at this, but, once again, don’t get bogged down if you find it complicated. The purpose of this section is to set the stage for what follows, which we consider in question 8.

On p. 298, Bavinck moves on from these questions of vocabulary to identify the three crucial questions that lie at the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity.

9. “For a true understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity three questions must be answered” (p. 298)? What are these questions (pp. 298-299)?

*10. What problems arise if we seek an analogy for the distinction between “nature” and “person” in the life of creatures (p. 299)? How does orthodox trinitarianism avoid these problems (p. 300)?

*11. What challenge is presented to orthodox trinitarianism by the concept of “personality” found in “modern philosophy” (pp. 301-302)? How does a right understanding of the divine “persons” correct this error (p. 302)?

The next section addresses the distinctions between the divine persons and the particular personal properties of each of the persons (pp. 304-314). Like the rest of the chapter, this is well worth reading, but you probably won’t have time to do so at this stage, and we won’t have time to discuss it in the tutorial.

Biblical texts mentioned in question 1, discussed by Bavinck on p. 264.

Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.

Psalm 45:7 Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions

Psalm 110:1 The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Hosea 1:6-7 And the LORD said to him, “Call her name No Mercy, for I will no more have mercy on the house of Israel, to forgive them at all. ⁷ But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the LORD their God. I will not save them by bow or by sword or by war or by horses or by horsemen.”

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor

Isaiah 63:9-12 ⁹In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. ¹⁰But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them. ¹¹Then he remembered the days of old, of Moses and his people. Where is he who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is he who put in the midst of them his Holy Spirit, ¹²who caused his glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses, who divided the waters before them to make for himself an everlasting name

Haggai 2:4-7 Work, for I am with you, declares the LORD of hosts, ⁵according to the covenant that I made with you when you came out of Egypt. My Spirit remains in your midst. Fear not. ⁶For thus says the LORD of hosts: Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land. ⁷And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory, says the LORD of hosts.

Dithering isn’t going to help - 7 December 2011

Douglas Wilson gives some helpful advice about public theology in the UK:

“I think UK Christians ought to dedicate themselves with solemn oaths and vows to be as culturally inappropriate as they can possibly be. Their nation is in peril – it might be past the point of no return – and dithering isn’t going to help anything.”

And there’s more. Get it here.

A trinitarian challenge - 7 December 2011

I’ve set an extra assignment today for first-year students on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course. In case anyone else wants to join in, here it is:

The above diagram represents the three basic errors that can be made in articulating the doctrine of the Trinity. These errors are:

(1) Denying the deity of one or more of the persons;

(2) Denying the oneness (unity) of the Godhead;

(3) Denying the distinction between the divine persons.

The boundary between truth and error in each of these three aspects of trinitarian doctrine is represented by a line on the diagram. Any point within the triangle is orthodox in all three respects. As soon as you leave the triangle, you’ve crossed one of the lines, and become unorthodox in the respect represented by that line. So, for example, if you head “down”, crossing the “Deity” line, you’ve denied the Deity of one (or more) of the persons of the Godhead.

You’ll see that it’s possible to cross more than one line – you could deny both the deity of the Son and the unity of the Godhead, for example, and find yourself in the space between the dotted lines on the bottom left of the diagram.

Here’s the assignment: Make your own copy of the diagram, and add points representing the following trinitarian heresies:

• Modalism / Sabellianism
• Arianism
• Tritheism
• Islam
• The view of Servetus (Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.22)
• The view of Valentine Gentile, the “monster” (Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.23)
• The “Quarternity” position mentioned in Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.25

If you’re a student on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, please bring your diagram to the next tutorial. If not, then you’ll need to be imaginative – maybe post the image on your own blog, and upload a link in the “comments” section following this post on my Facebook page.

Agree with each other - 6 December 2011

Here are some notes from on the dispute between Euodia and Syntyche in Philippians 4:2-3. The quotations are from Peter T. O’Brien’s commentary on Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), once memorably described by D. A. Carson as “certainly the best commentary on the Greek text of Philippians.”

Here’s a reminder of the text itself:

“I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” (Philippians 4:2-3)

And here are some thoughts from Peter O’Brien’s commentary:

1. What does Paul want, and how badly does he want it?

“In a direct personal appeal for unity Paul names the two women and begs them to reach a common mind … The apostle’s urging another of his coworkers to Help Euodia and Syntyche come to a common mind shows the necessity and urgency of the exhortation” (O’Brien, pp. 477-8).

2. How does Paul approach the disagreement?

“Paul refuses to take sides but makes the same appeal to both” (O’Brien, pp. 477-478).

3. Why is it so important that the dispute should be resolved?

“Their discord, whatever its precise nature, was a threat to the unity of the church as a whole. Otherwise it is difficult to explain why their names were mentioned in a letter to be read publicly in church” (O’Brien, p. 478).

4. What kind of resolution is Paul looking for?

“The expression to auto phroneiv, which means literally ‘to think the same thing’, is an appeal to Euodia and Syntyche to be at one in their mental attitude and so in the basic aim, direction, and orientation or their behaviour. Undoubtedly this would involve their having right attitudes towards each other and thus an ability to work together in harmony” (O’Brien, p. 478).

5. What do we know about the two women?

“They had contended at Paul’s side in the cause of the gospel … [and] their names … find a place in God’s record, the roll of the heavenly commonwealth … Euodia and Syntyche participated in Paul’s own struggle for the advance of the gospel … All their names are written in the book of life … including Euodia and Syntyche … This figurative language is employed several times in the book of Revelation to describe believers … who have been predestined from the foundation of the world … and who will enter the presence of God after the last assize” (O’Brien, pp. 479, 481-483).

6. Why does Paul ask his “true companion” to help them?

“It may be difficult for Euodia and Syntyche to come to a common mind on their own, so Paul requests his trusted colleague to help them. … He was probably some prominent and influential member of the congregation, perhaps a person of tact as well as influence” (O’Brien, pp. 480-481).

Advent Calendar - 5 December 2011

My lovely wife Nicole has made an Advent Calendar featuring a different biblical text for each day of Advent. A few days ago someone asked for a list of the verses, so here they are:

1. Isaiah 40:31. They who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary;
they shall walk and not faint.

2. Isaiah 7:14. Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

3. Isaiah 11:1-2. There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.

4. Jeremiah 23:5-6. “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’”

5. Isaiah 9:6. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

6. Micah 5:2. But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

7. Micah 5:4-5a. And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. And he shall be their peace.

8. Numbers 24:17. I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near:
a star shall come out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel;
it shall crush the forehead of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth.

9. Zechariah 9:9-10. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

10. Isaiah 9:2. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.

11. John 1:1-5. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

12. 1 John 5:20. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

13. Galatians 4:4-5. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

14. Luke 1:13, 16-17. The angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son …  And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.”

15. Luke 1:30-33. The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

16. Luke 1:35. The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy – the Son of God.

17. Luke 1:42-44. “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.”

18. Matthew 1:20-21. An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

19. Luke 2:7. And Mary gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

20. Luke 2:10-11. The angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.”

21. Luke 2:20. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.

22. Matthew 2:1-6. Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

23. Matthew 2:11. Going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother and they fell down and worshipped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

24. John 1:14. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

25. Revelation 19:6, 16. Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out, “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

Bible for a quid - 5 December 2011

You’ve got to be joking, right? Nope. ESV Bibles available at Amazon for the ridiculous sum of One Pound Sterling. Delivered free in the UK with Super Saver Delivery.

I’m not sure how nice the paper is, whether the text is Anglicised, or whether the “editorial amendments” (ahem…) added since the first edition are included. But at this price I don’t think I have the right to be too fussy. Click the image to buy.

Only after death - 5 December 2011

Peter Leithart on the differences between the two potential tribal origins of Israel’s King – Benjamin and Judah:

“Benjamin is identified as a future king in Genesis 35 without any preparation or training, while Judah was proclaimed the royal tribe only after he had offered himself as a substitute for Benjamin (Gen. 44:18-34). Similarly, Saul [the Benjaminite] became king without ever accepting the cross, while David, the king from Judah, rose to the throne only after a death and resurrection.” (Leithart, A Son to Me, p. 72)

24. Covenant theology (1) - 1 December 2011

Introduction

Session 24 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course brings us to the subject of Covenant Theology, the next part of our study of the doctrine of salvation. Covenant theology is a way of reading the whole Bible that takes into account the unfolding shape of God’s work in the world and his unfolding relationship with humanity. This relationship always takes the form of a covenant, and Covenant Theology attempts to trace the development of these covenants through Scripture. Covenant theology is not an alien framework imposed on the biblical text; it is a perspective that the Bible’s own covenantal structure drives us to. It thus draws together the various different strands of Scripture into a single coherent whole that reflects the structure of God’s self-disclosure to humanity.

In the next three sessions we’ll be reading O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). We begin this week with chapters 1 to 4. Robertson’s book is an outstanding piece of work, though of course we may find ourselves disagreeing with him at one or two points. As ever, don’t worry if you’re pressed for time; just omit the questions marked with a *. We will be able to pick up any loose threads in the tutorial.

Outline

• Recap: biblical theology to systematic soteriology
• Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, chs 1-4

Questions for reflection

i. How would you define a “covenant”?

ii. Where in the Bible would you look for a more complete or precise answer to the previous question?

iii. What is the old covenant? What is the new covenant? What are the differences between them?

Study questions

In chapter 1 (pp. 3-15), Robertson defines a covenant as “a bond in blood sovereignly administered” (p. 4), and then proceeds to provide evidence to support this definition. The different sections in the chapter cover different aspects of this definition: a covenant is a bond (pp. 4-7), in blood (pp. 7-15), sovereignly administered (p. 15). Let’s think about how Robertson approaches the question of defining a covenant:

1. Why does Robertson think that a covenant is a bond (pp. 4-7)?

2. Why does Robertson think that a covenant is a bond in blood (pp. 7-15)?

3. Why does Robertson think that a covenant is sovereignly administered (pp. 7-15)?

For reflection: How well do the following biblical passages fit with Robertson’s definition of a covenant?

• Genesis 9:1-17
• Genesis 15
• 1 Samuel 18:1-4
• Luke 22:14-22

The word “covenant” first appears in the Bible in Genesis 6, in relation to God’s dealings with Noah. Some have therefore argued that the concept of “covenant” cannot be found in the Bible before this point. However, Robertson thinks the concept of covenant is found even where the word “covenant” itself is not. In chapter 2, he argues that “the relationship of God to man prior to Noah may be designated as ‘covenantal’” (p. 19). Let’s try to work out whether we agree with him.

4. Summarise the different strands of evidence Robertson offers to support the idea of a covenant between God and man prior to Noah. The following section divisions might be helpful:

• Some initial points (p. 18)
• Jeremiah 33 (pp. 19-21)
• Hosea 6:7 (pp. 22-24)
• Some “elements essential to the existence of a covenant” (pp. 24-25)

In chapter 3, Robertson considers how the different covenants in Scripture relate to one another.

5. How does Robertson summarise the relationship between the different covenants in Scripture (p. 28)? What two main lines of evidence does he provide to support his position (p. 28)?

Chapter 3 is quite long, and at times rather complex. However, the biblical texts that Robertson highlights are fairly clear, and they’re certainly important. Let’s focus on these key texts as we try to navigate through this chapter. First, let’s look at the first major section of the chapter – what Robertson calls “the structural unity of the divine covenants”.

6. How do the following texts support what Robertson calls (on p. 28) “the structural unity of the divine covenants” (pp. 28-45)?

• Exodus 2:24 (p. 29)
• Exodus 6:4-8 (pp. 29-30)
• 2 Samuel 7:6 (p. 31)
• 1 Kings 2:3 (p. 32)
• Exodus 32:13-14 (p. 32)

*7. What does Robertson mean by “a unity in genealogical administration” (p. 34)? How does he explain this idea on pp. 34-41? What extra element does he add on pp. 41-44?

For reflection: What implications might this principle of “unity in genealogical administration” have for our understanding of the church?

Now let’s consider the second major section of the chapter – what Robertson calls “the thematic unity of the divine covenants” (pp. 45-52).

8. What is the key phrase that serves to bind together the different biblical covenants into a thematic unity (p. 45)? Where does this phrase occur (pp. 45-51)?

In chapter 4, Robertson highlights some important differences between the biblical covenants. Let’s look at these one by one.

9. What does Robertson think about the idea of an eternal covenant between the persons of the Trinity (p. 54)?

*For reflection: Could our previous reading on the doctrines of God and creation provide any support for the idea of an eternal covenant between the persons of the Trinity?

10. What is “the second structural distinction among the divine covenants” (p. 54)? What does Robertson think of “the terminology traditionally associated with this scheme” (p. 55)?

*11. What is “the third distinction among God’s covenants” (p. 57)?

*12. What must we do “to avoid a blatant misreading of [the apostle Paul’s] primary intention” in the letter to the Galatians (p. 58; see also pp. 59-61)?

9. The Trinity (1) - 1 December 2011

Introduction

We’re continuing with the doctrine of God in session 9 of the Guided Reading Course, turning now to the doctrine of the Trinity. We’ll begin with a short section from Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (pp. 87-89), which provides a helpful introduction to some of the key concepts. Calvin’s Institutes, I.xiii (1:120-159) forms the main body of the reading.

Please don’t worry about reading the whole of the chapter on the Trinity in Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. Just look at the pages identified in the questions below. Then get stuck into Calvin.

This chapter of Calvin is quite long, but for our purposes some portions are significantly more important than others. I suggest you focus especially on section 6 and sections 16-20. Sections 21-23 are also worth looking at (see questions 11 to 13). The other sections are also good, of course, but given the constraints of time the above-noted sections are the best places to focus your attention. As before, let the notes and questions below help you.

Here’s an outline of the chapter to help you find you way around:

Sections 1-2: Introductory material and brief discussion of Hebrews 1:3

Sections 3-5: Defence of the use of extra-biblical words.

Section 6: Definition of important words.

Sections 7-13: Proofs for the deity of the Son.

Sections 14-15: Proofs for the deity of the Sprit.

Sections 16-20: Discussion of the unity of the persons of the Trinity (section 16) and the distinctions between them (sections 17-19), with a concluding summary (section 20).

Sections 21-29: Refutation of trinitarian heresies.

If you’re pressed for time in answering the questions (and this week I’ll be surprised if you’re not!), skip the questions marked with a *.

Questions for reflection

i. How would you explain the doctrine of the Trinity?

ii. Which biblical texts would you turn to if you were challenged to prove

• the deity of Christ?
• the deity of the Holy Spirit?
• the one-ness of God?
• the three-ness of God?

iii. Have you ever heard any illustrations or analogies for the Trinity? What do you think of them?

Study questions on Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 87-89

1. What, according to Berkhof, do the persons of the Trinity have in common (p. 87-88)? How are they distinguished (p. 87-89)?

If you do have some spare time, you might find it helpful to look also at pp. 91-97. But don’t let this stop you getting on to the reading from Calvin’s Institutes.

*2. What kind of “subordination” exists between the persons of the Trinity (p. 88)? What kind of “subordination” does not exist?

Study questions on Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii (1:120-159)

3. By what “special mark” does the true God distinguish himself from idols (I.xiii.2)?

4. What two conclusions does Calvin draw from the statement in Hebrews 1:3 that “the Son of God is called ‘the stamp of the Father’s hypostasis’” (I.xiii.2)?

I.xiii.3-5 are an aside, in which Calvin defends the use of terms like “trinity” and “person” against critics who claim that such extra-biblical words should not be used in theology. Calvin argues that such terms aid the interpretation of Scripture and help to distinguish true doctrine from false. Don’t worry too much about these sections.

I.xiii.6, on the other hand, is rather important, and worth grappling with. However, it’s also extremely dense and hard to follow, so don’t worry if you find it confusing. That’s what the tutorial is for.

5. What does Calvin infer from John’s statements that “the Word was always with God” and yet “the word was also God himself” (I.xiii.6)?

I.xiii.7-15 are a detailed scriptural demonstration of the deity of the Son and the Spirit. Though these doctrines are of course vitally important, these sections are less significant for our present purposes.

*6. How does Calvin prove the deity of the Son in I.xiii.7-13? What do you make of his arguments?

*7. How does Calvin prove the deity of the Spirit I.xiii.14-15? What do you make of his arguments?

8. What point does Calvin seek to prove from the two texts concerning baptism that he cites in I.xiii.16 (Eph 4:5 and Mt 28:19)? What do you think of this argument?

9. What does Calvin think about “analogies” of the Trinity drawn “from human affairs” (I.xiii.18)?

10. What distinctions between the Father, Son and Spirit does Calvin find in Scripture (I.xiii.18-19)?

11. In what three main ways have trinitarian heretics erred (I.xiii.21-22)?

*12. Which errors are seen in the heresies of Servetus (I.xiii.22) and Valentine Gentile (the “similar monster” mentioned in I.xiii.23; compare footnote 51)? How are these errors manifested in each case?

*13. Why do Valentine and his associates think that Calvin has “set up a quaternity” (I.xiii.25)? How does Calvin respond to this charge?

*14. Why does the “order” (I.xiii.26) that exists between the Father and the Son not support Valentine’s case? What kind of order does exist between the Father and the Son?

God’s words are free - 1 December 2011

Further to this post, here’s a comment from a friend of mine on the subject of copyright:

“Clearly the Biblical authors did not believe that there was a moral need to compensate someone for the use of their words. Bits of Chronicles are cribbed wholesale from Kings, for example – sometimes with (pseudonymous) attribution, sometimes without. But pretty certainly without fee or royalty.”

And here’s a reminder of a previous post on the related subject of intellectual property.

Unclean! Unclean! - 1 December 2011

Gordon Wenham on leprosy and its OT significance:

“The diseased person had to live alone outside the camp. A solitary existence was viewed as a calamity in itself … Biblical man knew he was meant to live in society, to be a member of God’s people. Living outside the camp would, therefore, have occasioned great distress … it was the place farthest removed from God, the place to which the sinner and the impure were banished … the place where wrongdoers were executed … To live outside the camp was to be cut off from the blessings of the covenant. It was little wonder that when a man was diagnosed as unclean he had to go into mourning. He experienced a living death … As Adam and Eve experienced a living death when they were expelled from Eden, so every man who was diagnosed suffered a similar fate.” (G. J. Wenham, Leviticus, pp. 200-201)

The good or the best? - 30 November 2011

Here are the questions following the sixth tutorial in the newly-launched Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. Give examples of how Scripture (implicitly or explicitly) nuances or modifies each of the Ten Commandments such that actions which might superficially appear to violate one of the Commandments turn out on closer inspection to be permissible or praiseworthy.

Here’s an example: Rahab is commended (explicitly in James 2:25 and implicitly in Joshua 2) for lying to the soldiers who were searching for the Israelite spies (Joshua 2:3-6). Though one might think at first glance that Rahab’s actions violated the ninth commandment, in fact these other considerations show that the commandment “Do not bear false witness” is nuanced in such a way that it is not being violated in this situation.

2. Give examples (either from Scripture or elsewhere, though not from Luke 10:30-37, see below) of ways in which the following eight factors (highlighted by Austin Fagothey in Right and Reason) might allow us to determine which of two competing affirmative duties ought to be undertaken.

a. the nobler person – God before man
b. the closer relationship – closer relatives before remote ones
c. the more common good – world peace before personal comfort
d. the wider social order – family before individual
e. the graver matter – life before property
f. the greater urgency – fighting a fire before reading a book
g. the higher law – inalienable rights before alienable
h. the clearer title – paying a debt before giving a gift

3. * Explain how each of the eight factors listed above are (a) exemplified by the Good Samaritan; and/or (b) ignored by the Priest and the Levite in Luke 10:30-37.

* Do question 3 only if you have time after having done questions 1 and 2, and please don’t select any of your examples for question 2 from Luke 10:30-37.

Note: I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Something more conversational in style, or perhaps akin to a blog post is fine. If you find it easier to write brief notes rather than continuous prose, that’s fine too.

Not a God far away - 29 November 2011

Arthur Just gives a spin to Luke 5:12-16 that warrants further consideration:

“By performing this healing, Jesus shows that the OT code of holiness points to him. His life and death fulfill it and abrogate it. But that abrogation is not complete until his sacrificial death. Until then, there is still a need for Israel to conform to the purity laws of the OT, which require the newly cleansed leper to show himself to the priest and make an offering” (Arthur Just, Luke, pp. 214-215).

This contrasts with other readings of Luke 5, in which Jesus’ healing of the leper is seen precisely as a manifestation of the sacrificial quality of his ministry, on the premise that for the cleansing of a leper in the OT a sacrifice was required. However, Just’s reading fits better, I think, because according to Lev 13-14 the sacrifice was required after the healing, not as a means to it, and furthermore Jesus tells the man to “make an offering” (v. 14) in the temple.

The emphasis, then, perhaps does not fall on the sacrificial quality of Jesus ministry, but rather somewhere else. One possibility is that healing itself (and thus restoration to a condition of cleanness) was one thing that the OT law couldn’t do. A leper just needed to hang around and wait for the disease to go away. If it did, all well and good – the priest could then certify him as clean, offer the appropriate sacrifices, and so on. But if the disease remained, that was just too bad. The man would have been condemned to a life of exclusion and ostracism by the incurable character of his condition. This incurability is the thing that Jesus overturns. Healing and cleanness flows out from him, as a sign of the holiness within him and the greater glory of the New Covenant, by which God does not remain at a distance but comes close to us in Christ.

Contagious holiness - 29 November 2011

Some thoughts found in, and stimulated by, Douglas Jones’s unpublished commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Lk 5:12-16):

• “Christ’s kingdom is all about life overcoming death. Christ has come to overthrow and exorcise all sorts of death … Christ’s holiness has come to restore dying bodies” (p. 83).
• “These purity laws all seem to connect and make sense as symbolic expressions of that central distinction between life and death” (p. 85). OK, possibly. Probably, even. But there’s probably more to say too. Wholeness and one-ness as opposed to divided-ness and mixed-ness, for example. And observing created distinctions. Though there’s no need for either-or here.
• “Jesus shows up in Galilee reversing all [these manifestations of death found under the Old Covenant]. He’s not afraid of death. He rules death. Death is afraid of him … Death flees from this new Adam. He is holiness incarnate, and he removes the curse of death. He brings the life of God, and death can’t bear it. He is the High Priest purifying the people of God. His holiness is contagious. It overcomes death” (pp. 85-86)

Van Til meets Leithart - 28 November 2011

Everyone seems to be reading books on the subject of leadership at the moment, including my good friend Peter Scholtens, who has a number of good things to say about Peter C. Maxwell’s book The 360 Degree Leader.

This whole subject strikes me as a very good example of how what Cornelius van Til called “borrowed capital” combines with what Peter Leithart called “middle grace”.

“Borrowed capital,” in van Til’s writing, refers to the ideas which non-Christian pick up from the Christian world(view) and treat as their own, without acknowledging their source. In apologetic terms, this leaves unbelievers vulnerable, for in simultaneously denying the Christian faith while affirming some of the things for which only the Christian faith can provide a basis, they are in effect cutting off the branch they’re sitting on. But as long as you don’t scratch too deeply, a Christian can learn quite a lot of interesting and useful stuff.

“Middle Grace,” in Leithart’s work, refers to (one of) the process(es) by which unbelievers receive the insights described above. Not special grace, for they don’t read the Bible; not (strictly speaking) common grace (for these insights don’t come through “the light of nature” as such). Rather, they are gained by unbelievers through their contact with the church, where these truths are taught and believed.

Add all this together, and what we find are a whole host of books on “leadership” written from a perspective that is not (at least explicitly) Christian, coming out of countries where the gospel of Christ has historically had a significant impact on the culture. And these books often have a great deal to commend them, for, despite the fact that they don’t mention Christ by name, their authors have somehow managed to pick up on quite a lot of things which, in Christian terms, make for good leadership.

If you want proof, take a look at Peter Scholten’s summary of Maxwell’s 360 Degree Leader. And ask yourself, isn’t this an uncannily accurate portrait (of just a few aspects of the character) of  Jesus?

Maxwell carries on by explaining where our influence lies, specifically in these 5 areas:

1. Position – Influence because of your role.
2. Permission – Influence because of your character.
3. Production – Influence because of your production.
4. People Development – Influence because of who you’ve mentored.
5. Personhood – Influence because of your personality.

John Maxwell also focuses on direction of leadership – up, across, and down.

When leading up well, we must help our leaders by anticipating what our leaders need and then shouldering some of their load. It is also important to anticipate and use the time we have well, getting to know them and how to work with them.

When leading across well, we need to complete rather than compete, being a friend rather than a competitor.

When leading down, place people where they will thrive, modeling the behaviours you wish to see. In the end, you are most effective as a leader when your vision is clear and you reward the behaviours you want to see.

Not Ashamed 2011 - 25 November 2011

It’s that time of year again. 1 December 2011 is Not Ashamed Day. Click the logo for more information.

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

© Emmanuel Evangelical Church 2011 · Registered charity no 1128397 · Designed by RFDN and Web4Christ · Powered by WordPress