• Home
  • Sundays
  • Find us
  • Contact us
  • About
  • Sermons
  • Minister’s Blog
  • Guided Reading Course


    • Bible

    		 Email This Post


    « Previous Entries Next Entries »

    Four horns - 30 August 2011

    Given that Zechariah mentions only one “horn of salvation” in Luke 1:69, perhaps the title of this sermon needs a little explanation.

    The horns of an animal are the dangerous bits. The business end of the beast, so to speak. They thus represent the strength of an animal.

    Besides this, however, horns had other uses in ancient Israel. They were hollowed out and used as containters for oil, and thus became associated with the anointing of Priests, Prophets and Kings. They were also used as trumpets, and thus came to be connected with the praises of the people of God or the call to battle of the LORD’s army.

    Finally, horns were used as a blueprint in the tabernnacle and temple architecture. In particular, the altar had horn-shaped projections (called “horns”) on its corners, where sacrificial blood was sprinkled during sacrificial rituals.

    So, putting it all together, we have something like this:

    Horns of an animal – the strength of the LORD
    Horns of the altar – the sacrificial blood of the Son
    A horn full of oil – the anointing of the Spirit
    A horn as a trumpet – the praises of God’s people

    If that sounds vaguely trinitarian (Father-Son-Spirit => people), that’s because it is.

    Super eight - 11 August 2011

    If you’re reading the Bible carefully, you already know there’s something peculiarly special about the number eight. Eight people in the ark; you give your ox to the LORD on the eighth day; David was Jesse’s eighth son; Jesus was raised on the eighth day; and so on.

    As Henri Blocher once said, the number eight is a kind of numerical symbol for the new creation. No surprise, really, since four symbolises the whole world (four corners, right?) and twice four is eight, and therefore a second world.

    All OK so far? Good.

    So then you’re reading through 1 Chronicles 26, diligently poring over the divisions of labour for the gatekeepers, the sons of Meshelemiah and Obed-Edom. (As my kids like to sing, “1 Chronicles, 1 Chronicles, the book with lots of funny names.”)

    And lo and behold, as the Chronicler carefully enumerates O-E’s sons, he gets to “Peullethai, the eighth, for God blessed him” (v. 5).

    More on Levi’s three sons - 29 July 2011

    In a previous post I said a few things about the surprising order and proportions of the genealogies of Levi’s descendants Gershon, Kohath and Merari in 1 Chronicles 6. A quick glance through the later part of that chapter reveals similar emphases in the allotment of land. Lots of space is devoted to the allotment of land for the sons of Kohath, “for theirs was the first lot” (v. 54). The Gershonites get slightly less space (vv. 71ff). Finally, Merari is squeezed into the middle (v. 63ff.). And though I’ve not looked hard at the geography, my impression is that Merari’s crowd get quite a lot less space to live in too: only twelve cities (v. 63) compared with considerably more for Gershon and Kohath.

    It’s possible that these differences also reflect the number of their descendants. If Kohath and Gershon had more kids, obviously their list would take more space, and they would also probably end up needing more land. But the fact that this should itself be correlated with their tabernacle privileges (see previous post) is itself interesting, suggesting that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic blessing of descendants in the land (cf. Gen 12) goes hand-in-hand with other privileges in the sanctuary.

    Levi’s three sons - 29 July 2011

    Levi’s three sons are listed in 1 Chronicles 6:1 as Gershon, Kohath and Merari. They’re listed in the same order in Numbers 3:17, so this presumably reflects the order of their birth.

    However, as 1 Chronicles 6 unfolds, there’s something strange about the subsequent descriptions of Levi’s descendants. First, the order of Gershon and Kohath is reversed. Kohath comes first (vv. 2-15), then Gershon (vv. 16-28), then finally Merari (vv. 29-30). Second, far less detail is given of Merari’s descendants than of either Gershon’s or Kohath’s (only two verses for Merari, 7 people in total; compared to several dozen people and about a dozen verses for each of his brothers). Why should this be?

    I suspect that the answer might have something to do with the respective duties of each group of Levi’s descendants. Kohath’s responsibilities in the tabernacle involved taking care of the most holy pieces of tabernacle equipment – “the ark, the table, the lampstand, the altars, the vessels of the sanctuary” (Numbers 3:31) and so on. Gershon’s descendants looked after much of the fabric of the tent itself, the curtains, the hangings and so forth (vv. 25-26). Finally, Merari’s folk were charged with looking after the least glamorous bits and pieces – “the frames or the tabernacle, the bars, the pillars, the bases, and all their accessories … with their bases and pegs and cords” (vv. 36-37). Similar responsibilities are laid out in the Numbers 4 in the instructions for moving the tabernacle from place to place. In other words, Kohath looked after all the über-holy stuff inside the tabernacle; Gershon looked after the tent itself, and Merari made sure all the tentpegs were firmly knocked it. So Kohath comes first, Gershon second, and Merari last.

    A multitude of counsellors - 27 July 2011

    Judges 21 is complicated. It’s extremely hard to work out who’s right, who’s wrong, and why. Even the normal multitude of solid evangelical counsellors do little to generate consensus, for commentators take a range of diametrically opposing views for reasons that all seem fairly reasonable.

    On the one hand, for example, James Jordan (Judges) says that Israel did right. They were right to act with such vigour against Benjamin, for judgment begins with the house of God, and the people of God are to be judged by a stricter standard than the world (p. 317). Benjamin had identified themselves with Canaan, and therefore both the battle of Jdg 20 and the oath referred to in Jdg 21 are justified (p. 319). Nonetheless, their sorrow at the start of Jdg 21 is also understandable, since the excommunication of a member of the body is a cause for grief, not for joy (p. 317). They therefore sought a new birth for Benjamin, in keeping with the purpose of excommunication – restoration of the offender to fellowship and participation in the people of God. The war against Jabesh-Gilead was justified, since in refusing to side with Israel against Benjamin, Jabesh-Gilead has opposed the LORD (p. 322). And the capture of the daughters of Shiloh was not a rape, but rather in keeping with the intentions of the daughters themselves, who were in fact performing a dance expressly designed to attract husbands (p. 325). The fathers might have objected to the idea of giving their daughters to Benjaminites, but the clever subterfuge of the “capture” ensured that they could not be held morally responsible, because (technically) the girls were taken, not given (p. 325). God thus worked in sovereign grace in and through through his people Israel to preserve intact all twelve tribes in the inheritance he had promised.

    On the other hand, Dan Block (Judges, Ruth; NIVAC) argues that Israel did wrong. Their willingness to intermarry with Canaanites while pledging an oath against marrying their own countrymen revealed a deeply distorted set of priorities (p. 569). Now that the battle was over, they realised the folly of their oath, and sought a way around it. Their solution involves massacring the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead, for whom the text deliberately elicits sympathy (p. 574), while their sparing the virgin daughters is without legal precedent and smacks of opportunism (p. 575). Upon realising that there are still 200 Benjaminites without wives, they embark upon a second crusade, this time abducting the helpless daughters of Shiloh in a manner unnervingly similar to the Benjaminite rape of the Levite’s concubine (p. 581). The rationalisation offered to the fathers of the daughters of Shiloh might fulfil the letter of the law, but only at the expense of violating its spirit (p. 582). The final preservation of the tribe of Benjamin thus owes little to divine grace, and everything to human expediency and the people of Israel seek to preserve their own integrity by exploiting loopholes in God’s law (p. 585).

    And just in case that weren’t complicated enough, Dale Ralph Davis (Judges; Christian Focus) steers a course between the two extremes. He points out the difficulty presented by Judges 21, where “the writer describes what happens but gives us little of no indication of his position on the matter” (p. 224). The chapter describes an “ambiguous situation,” in which “there is a certain rightness and a certain wrongness about what Israel does. They justifiably requite Jabesh-gilead with unjustifiable severity … they stand consistently upon their wife-oath but trample happily on the rights of the Shiloh girls” (p. 226).

    Delayed disclosure - 19 July 2011

    1 Samuel 25:15-16 is a masterful example of delayed disclosure. It is only at this point – after David has appealed to Nabal, after Nabal has railed against David, and after David and his men have prepared for war – that we discover that David has, in fact, gone out of his way to be a blessing to Nabal, despite the latter’s hostility.

    And this moment coincides with the entry into the narrative of Abigail, Nabal’s beautiful and wise wife (previously mentioned in passing in v. 3, so we all knew she was going to be significant, but we didn’t know exactly how), whose presence transforms David’s fortunes no less than it transforms the narrative from the perspective of the reader.

    John ain’t crazy - 19 May 2011

    I was chatting with some folks at Christ Church Balham last night, and the subject of the book of Revelation came up. I promised to dig out some bits and pieces about the literary artistry of the book. Here, with thanks to David Field, are a few numerological highlights.

    One thing’s certain: John (the author of Revelation) wasn’t crazy. Both he and the Lord who inspired him knew exactly what they were doing.

    Click here for more.

    Baby believers - 8 March 2011

    A friend emailed me a while back about the question of whether covenant children and infants (or even babies in the womb) can be said to have faith in God. Two important texts in this discussion are Ps 229-10 and Ps 71:5-6, which read as follows:

    9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. 10 On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God. (Ps 22:9-10)

    5 For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust, O LORD, from my youth. 6 Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother’s womb. My praise is continually of you. (Ps 71:5-6)

    Here are a couple of thoughts about these texts.

    (1) The word translated “trust” in 22:9 is the normal Hebrew verb meaning “trust” or “believe.” It appears over 160 times in the OT. For example, it appears in Ps 62:8, where it refers to the “trust” that all God’s people should place in their LORD. The use of this word implies at the very least that a child (like the infant David referred to in Psalm 22) is capable of a kind of dependence on the LORD which is analogous to what we call “faith” in adults. Of course it wouldn’t be exactly the same as faith in an adult, since it would not be accompanied by the same level of understanding. Adults have adult-faith; infants have infant-faith. In each case, the disposition of dependence towards the LORD is expressed in a manner that reflects the capacities of the person involved.

    (2) The idea that infants and young children can genuinely have faith in the LORD is reinforced by a number of other terms and phrases in the above verses that mean similar things. David was “cast” on the LORD (22:9); from his mother’s womb he says God has “been by God” (echoing the promise to Anraham in Genesis 17); his “hope” is in the LORD (71:5); and he has “leaned” on the LORD (71:6). This repetition of synonymous or near-synonymous words and phrases is typical of Hebrew poetry, which often says the same sort of thing in several different ways to give different perspectives on the subject at hand. The overall picture is clear: infants and young children are here said to be capable of exhibiting precisely the sort of dependence on the LORD which is required of all of us, and indeed for which Jesus commends children in Luke 18:15-17.

    Here’s a comment about Psalm 71:5-6 taken from Gerald H. Wilson’s commentary on Psalms 1-71: “The psalmist claims to have ‘leaned on’ God for support ‘from the belly/womb,’ to that reliance is perceived as antedating birth” (p. 970).

    The last enemy - 29 January 2011

    1 Corinthians 15:23-26 seems to teach that Christ will conquer his enemies progressively during the period of time from his resurrection/ascension/enthronement to the general resurrection and last judgment, such that by the general resurrection only “the last enemy … death” remains. Thus postmillenialists claim support from this text for their view that the vast majority of people will be saved before the end, and indeed that the gospel will gradually come to dominate even whole nations and the political structures by which those nations are governed.

    Here’s the text:

    23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Cor 15:23-26)

    An amillenialist might contend that the spread of the gospel does not necessarily entail the numerical dominance of the kingdom of God over the kingdom of the world. Every argument that is demolished (2 Cor 10) and every soul that is saved represents a step forward for the kingdom and the destruction of another enemy. Thus they would argue that 1 Cor 15 does not support postmillennialism.

    A postmillennialist, by contrast, would say at least two other things:

    (1) The conquest of enemies (1 Cor 15) needs to be viewed in the light of the fact that according to (for example) Daniel 2 and 7 the kingdom of God displaces its enemies as it grows. The kingdom of God grows and the kingdom of this world shrinks, because, after all, the kingdom of this world will one day have become the kingdom of the Lord and of his Christ (Rev 11:15).

    (2) How many enemies are left immediately before the end? None, says Paul, except “the last enemy … death”. This means, a postmillennialist would say, that even ungodly political power – ungodly nations in their capacity as nations in enmity towards God – will by that point have been brought to repentance before Christ.

    Human sacrifice? - 27 January 2011

    At first glance, Jephthah doesn’t seem to come out too well from the end of Judges 11. Child-sacrifice doesn’t look great on the parental CV, and the account of Jephthah’s vow therefore looks pretty bleak.

    Many commentators argue that this apparently fairly obvious reading is correct. Daniel Block, for example, in his outstanding commentary on Judges and Ruth in the NAC series, and Dale Ralph Davis in his more popular-level book published by Christian Focus. Dan Block delivers a pretty uncompromising verdict: Jephthah was guilty of “despicable behaviour”; a “faithless” and “paganized” ruler with “no reservations about manipulating God” (pp. 364, 372, 373).

    For what it’s worth (not much, perhaps, though I’m not the only one who begs to differ at this point), I disagree. Here’s what I reckon happened, and here’s the Q&A we had afterwards.

    Centre stage - 25 January 2011

    Dale Ralph Davis on the men of Ephraim in Judges 12: “Some are not even content to sit at the right hand and the left in the kingdom, but insist in occupying the centre throne … How difficult it is for me to rejoice in God’s saving work when I am not the Christian celebrity in the middle of it. We don’t like to play the Christian game unless someone will appropriately stroke our Christian egos for doing so” (Judges, pp. 150-151)

    A new song - 6 January 2011

    According to the OT, there are many reasons to praise the LORD with ‘a new song’:

    It’s interesting, though, that ‘a new song’ is only ever sung in the OT in praise of the LORD God, Yahweh.

    So what are we to make of Revelation 5?

    And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.’ Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,  saying with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honour and glory and blessing!’ And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, ‘To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honour and glory and might forever and ever!’ And the four living creatures said, ‘Amen!’ and the elders fell down and worshiped. (Revelation 5:9-14)

    Thanks to John Richardson, from years ago when he taught a couple of courses at the Cornhill Training Course.

    Remain in him - 6 January 2011

    The Bible represents the relationship between Christ and his church with at least three sets of images: the head and the body; a husband and his wife; a vine and its branches.

    These images are used to portray different aspects of our relationship with Christ. For example, the image of the head and the body highlights the necessity of honouring Christ (1 Cor 11) and submitting to Christ (Eph 5:22-24), and the futility of ‘not holding fast to the Head’ (Col 2:19).

    The husband and wife image famously appears in Eph 5:25-33, where stress is laid on Christ’s love for his body (vv. 25, 29-30) and the intimacy of our union with him (vv. 31-32).

    The image of the vine and branches is found in Rom 11: the branches share in the holiness of the root (v. 16), are supported by the root (v. 18), and can be severed from the root if they persist in unbelief (vv. 19-22). Similarly, Jesus describes himself as ‘the true vine’ (John 15:1). His Father, ‘the vine dresser’ (v. 1), prunes the branches to increase their fruitfulness (v. 2), and the branches can bear fruit only if they remain in the vine (vv. 4-5). Finally, as in Rom 11, Jesus warns that any branch that does not abide in him by keeping his commandments will be cut off, thrown away and burned (vv. 6, 9-10).

    Abimelech, you’re already dead - 7 November 2010

    Abimelech, you’re a fool (Judges 9).

    Having seized the throne by deceit and treachery, do you really think that the LORD will allow your kingdom to last? Don’t be ridiculous. The people who were wicked and deceitful enough to establish you in power are not suddenly going to become loyal and principled enough to keep you there.

    No, Abimelech, the next loathesome son of a slave who brings along his relatives and throws a party will become the new man of the moment (9:26; cf. 9:3). Pretty soon the men with whom you plotted your ascent to power and the murder of those you (wrongly) regarded as your rivals will be plotting your demise (9:26-29).

    And so the end of your kingdom will be announced almost as soon as it has begun (9:22); the three years of your rule will vanish in the blink of an eye; you are destined to perish in disgrace – just like the great deceiver who went before you (9:53-54; cf. Gen 3:15); and after you are gone no one will mourn your passing (9:55).

    Congratulations on your new appointment, Abimelech. But you’re already dead.

    Two female bookends - 3 November 2010

    The section on Judges 9:22-57 in Daniel Block’s commentary on Judges, Ruth (NAC) is exceptionally good, even by the author’s own high standards. Exegetical detail and startling insights are combined with a light touch and a marvellous turn of phrase. Here’s a brief taster:

    The story of Abimelech the macho man is framed by two women: the first, who gave him life (8:31), and the second, who took it (9:5) … Neither human pretension (8:22-32) nor human ferocity (9:1-55) could dislodge Yahweh from his throne. In the end Abimelech’s egomaniacal ambition must yield to the kingship of God, and with this the story of Gideon is complete. (p. 334)

    Judges in one breath - 28 October 2010

    Here, with thanks to all the members of Emmanuel who spent a happy half-hour on Sunday afternoon working this out and memorising it, is an easy-to-remember outline of the book of Judges:

    1-2  Introduction
    3  The Three Assassins
    4-5  Happy Campers
    6-8  Gideon
    9  Abimelech
    10  Tola, Jair and another cycle
    11-12  Jepthah plus three
    13-16  Samson
    17-18  Micah, the priest and Dan
    19-21  Levite, concubine, Benjamin, civil war

    No king in Israel - 18 October 2010

    In yesterday’s sermon on Judges 8:22-35, I remarked that there are at least four reasons why Gideon and his sons should not have accepted the kingship in Israel.

    1. Gideon was from the wrong tribe. Genesis 49 says that the king must be from Judah (though some think Benjamin was also a potential contender), whereas Judges 6:15 says Gideon was from Manasseh.

    2. Gideon was the wrong man. Deuteronomy 17 says the king must be explicitly chosen by God, and Gideon was not.

    3. Gideon was selected for the wrong motives. The Israelites wanted Gideon to be their King because they believed that he had delivered them from the hand of Midian (Judges 8:22). But Gideon rightly perceived that this amounted to a rejection of the LORD’s rule, since it was by divine power alone that Midian had been defeated (Judges 7).

    4. Gideon came at the wrong time. The king needed to come from Judah’s son Perez. But Perez was an illegitimate child, so ten generations needed to pass before anyone from that family could enter the assembly of the LORD (Deuteronomy 23:2). It’s not clear that ten generations had passed by Gideon’s time, so it wasn’t yet the right time for Israel to have a King. Contrast this with the genealogy at the end of Ruth 4, which highlights that ten generations from Perez had elapsed by the time of David.

    This final point raises a further conundrum: why was it necessary for the king to come from the line of Perez? After all, Judah had four other sons – what about them? A glance at Genesis 38 suggests a possible answer.

    Judah had five sons: Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez and Zerah. Of these, Er was wicked, so the LORD put him to death (v. 7). Onan was then charged with fulfilling the obligations of Levirate marriage to Tamar, Er’s wife. He refused, and so the LORD put him to death too (v. 10).

    At this point Shelah was too young to father children (v. 11), so Tamar was left waiting for him to step in to Er’s shoes. In the meantime, however, the infamous meeting between Judah and Tamar-in-disguise took place, as a result of which Tamar became pregnant and gave birth to Perez and Zerah. Perez was the firstborn, and therefore inherited the king-promise given to Judah.

    But here’s the big puzzle: why did the promise not devolve to Shelah? Why could one of Shelah’s descendants not be king? Tricky one. Perhaps the reason runs like this: Judah in effect stepped into his son Er’s shoes in a ghastly perversion of a Levirate marriage. (In fact, the whole of Gen 38 is, from one perspective, about messed-up Levirate marriages.)  Consequently, his children Perez and Zerah, born of his daughter-in-law Tamar, were reckoned not only as his illegitimate children, but also as his grandchildren by his firstborn, Er. Thus their descendants were excluded from the assembly for ten generations (as per Dt 23:2), but nonetheless the promise of the kingship devolved upon them, and specifically upon Perez, the (legal) firstborn son of Judah’s firstborn son Er.

    (HT: BB, JBJ)

    The Bible is beautiful - 27 September 2010

    Psalm 67

    1 May God be gracious to us and bless us
    and make his face to shine upon us,

    2 that your way may be known on earth,
    your saving power among all nations.

    3 Let the peoples praise you, O God;
    let all the peoples praise you!

    4 Let the nations be glad and sing for joy,
    for you judge the peoples with equity
    and guide the nations upon earth.

    5 Let the peoples praise you, O God;
    let all the peoples praise you!

    6 The earth has yielded its increase;
    God, our God, shall bless us.

    7 God shall bless us;
    let all the ends of the earth fear him!

    The Lord abhors a rigged jury - 7 September 2010

    Among the many kinds of lying that the law of God forbids (Ex 20:16), one that receives particular attention in Scripture is dishonesty in legal settings (e.g. Ex 23:1-2; Prov 6:19 etc).

    One surprisingly common form of deceitfulness in such contexts is the selective appointment of witnesses intended to give a veneer of impartiality to a legal process that has all the integrity of a sack of damp sewage.

    So, for example, Naboth:

    So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name and sealed them with his seal, and she sent the letters to the elders and the leaders who lived with Naboth in his city. And she wrote in the letters, ‘Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth at the head of the people. And set two worthless men opposite him, and let them bring a charge against him, saying, “You have cursed God and the king.” Then take him out and stone him to death.’ (1 Kings 21:8-10)

    David:

    Give me not up to the will of my adversaries; for false witnesses have risen against me, and they breathe out violence. (Psalm 27:12)

    Stephen:

    Then they secretly instigated men who said, ‘We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.’ And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, and they set up false witnesses who said, ‘This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.’ (Acts 6:11-14)

    Paul:

    And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and a spokesman, one Tertullus. They laid before the governor their case against Paul. And when he had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him… (Acts 24:1-2)

    And, of course, Jesus:

    For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, ‘We heard him say, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands”.’ Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. (Mk 14:56-59)

    The Lord evidently takes a dim view of this sort of conniving:

    If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deut 19:16-21)

    It’s better to die - 2 September 2010

    The Philistine cows “went straight in the direction of Beth-Shemesh … they turned neither to the right nor to the left” (1 Sam 6:12), because it’s better to die in Israel that to live in Philistia – especially if you get to die as an offering to the LORD (v. 14).

    « Previous Entries Next Entries »