Introduction

We’re continuing in session 36 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course with the doctrine of justification, looking now at the relationship between justification and good works. We’ll be looking at Calvin, Institutes, III.xiv (1:768-788) and an extract from Jonathan Edwards’s Justification by Faith Alone. As we noted previously, the subject of justification was hotly debated during the Reformation, and Calvin deals with it extensively. It was also a hot topic in New England in Edwards’s time, and he returned to it repeatedly throughout his ministry as the doctrine of justification by faith alone came under attack from his theological opponents.

Edwards’s work is available online at edwards.yale.edu. Hard copies will be supplied to students formally enrolled on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

Outline of Edwards’s Justification by Faith Alone

Edwards’s work was written to argue the following proposition: “We are justified only by faith in Christ, and not by any manner of virtue or goodness of our own.” The work is divided into five sections, as follows:

I. The meaning of the proposition.

II. Evidence for the truth of the proposition.

III. Explanation of the place of obedience in justification.

IV. Answers to objections.

V. Consideration of the importance of the doctrine.

As ever, omit questions marked with a * if you’re pressed for time.

Questions for reflection

i. What might be meant by “progress in justification”?

ii. Are all your righteous deeds like a polluted garment (Isaiah 64:6)? Or is God pleased with your good and faithful service (Matthew 25:21, 23)? Or both?

iii. What might be meant by the term “nominal Christian”? Would you treat such a person differently from a Buddhist or an atheist?

iv. How would you seek to persuade someone that we cannot justify ourselves in God’s sight?

Study questions on Calvin, Institutes, III.xiv (1:768-788)

In III.xiv, Calvin is concerned to “examine what kind of righteousness is possible to man through the whole course of his life.” He begins by dividing people into four categories.

1. What are the four categories into which Calvin believes all humanity may be divided (III.xiv.1)?

For reflection: How do the people in group 1 differ from those in group 2? How do the people in group 2 differ from those in group 3?

2. What would be God’s verdict on men if they were “judged according to their natural gifts” (III.xiv.1)? What biblical evidence does Calvin cite? What does Calvin say about those who excel in “that decency of morals which has some appearance of holiness among men” (III.xiv.1)? Do you agree?

3. What does Calvin say about “all the notable endowments that manifest themselves among unbelievers” (III.xiv.2)?

4. What, then, is wrong with the “good works” of those “who are estranged from the religion of the one God” (III.xiv.3)?

5. How, according to Calvin (citing Augustine), does “our religion [distinguish] the just from the unjust” (III.xiv.4)? What biblical evidence does Calvin cite?

For reflection: How is this related to Calvin’s earlier teaching about the centrality of union with Christ?

6. What further biblical texts and theological arguments does Calvin outline in III.xiv.5-6 to support his insistence that we contribute nothing to our own justification in God’s sight?

Calvin turns in III.xiv.7-8 to consider “hypocrites and nominal Christians,” that is, “the second and third classes in the above-mentioned division” (III.xiv.7; cf. question 1, III.xiv.1).

7. Why, according to Calvin, are “all ungodly men, and especially all hypocrites … puffed up with … stupid assurance” (III.xiv.7)?

For reflection: Have you ever encountered the attitude Calvin describes? Do you have any ideas about how to address it?

*8. What point does Calvin seek to make from Genesis 4:4 at the end of III.xiv.8?

In III.xiv.9-11 Calvin considers “what righteousness is possessed by those … in the fourth class” (III.xiv.9), that is, those who are “regenerated by God’s Spirit” and “make holiness their true concern” (III.xiv.1; cf. question 1).

9. How does Calvin describe the way(s) in which righteousness is displayed by true believers (III.xiv.9)? What further point does he add in III.xiv.10?

In III.xiv.11, Calvin concludes his discussion of the righteousness displayed by true believers by highlighting “the pivotal point” of his “disputation” with the “Schoolmen,” i.e. the medieval Catholic Scholastic theologians (III.xiv.11).

10. How do the Schoolmen “describe the righteousness of the regenerated man” (III.xiv.11)? In what respect(s) does Calvin disagree? What evidence does he provide to support his view?

In the rest of this chapter (III.xiv.12-21), Calvin discusses and critiques the medieval Catholic doctrine of “supererogatory works”. This is worth reading, and contains some great one-liners summarises some of what he’s said already, but we won’t look at this in detail in the tutorial.

Instead, we’ll move on to an extract from Jonathan Edwards’s treatise Justification by Faith Alone, where he discusses the place that obedience may be said to have in justification.

Study questions on Edwards, Justification by Faith Alone

The page references below refer to the published version, which are reproduced in the printed handout in the form — xxx –. These numbers appear at the top of the pages to which they refer.

11. What has Edwards established “from what has been said already” (p. 201)? What else “has been shown, out of the Scripture” (p. 201)? In view of this, what place remains for “the acts of a Christian life” (p. 201) in justification?

12. Edwards thinks that the place of works in justification can be determined only “the resolving of another point” (p. 201)? What is this point, and why do you think Edwards regards it as important?

13. Edwards believes that “justification is by the first act of faith” (p. 201), and yet “the perseverance of faith is not excluded” (p. 202). How, according to Edwards, do John 15, Romans 8, Philippians 3, 1 John 2 and Revelation 14 support this conclusion (pp. 202)? Do you agree?

For reflection: Would you tell a new convert, “Your salvation is completely secure?” Why or why not?

For reflection: Would you tell a new convert, “You are secure in Christ?” Why or why not?

14. Can you explain how “the perseverance of faith … comes into consideration” even though justification is by “the first act of faith” (p. 203)? Does this make sense to you?

*15. Edwards believes that his argument is further supported by the fact that a new convert is justified not only “of all past sins, but also  of all future infirmities and acts of sin” (p. 203). Can you explain Edwards’s argument here? Do you find it persuasive?

16. How, according to Edwards, does the Lord’s Prayer support his argument (p. 204)?

17. How do Hebrews 3 and Romans 11 support Edwards’s view (p. 206)?

18. How, then, are “the acts of an evangelical, child-like believing obedience” (p. 207) connected with our justification?

Introduction

We’re continuing our study of the doctrine of salvation in session 22 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, looking at the final section of Peter J. Leithart, A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000), pp. 215-264.

As you’ll recall, this part of the course is deliberately structured to help you see how systematic soteriology (doctrine of salvation) emerges via covenant theology from an overview of the whole Bible. Despite it’s title (a survey of the Old Testament), this final section of Leithart’s book stretches past the Old Testament and into the New, thus helping us to see numerous connections between the Old Testament and the fulfilment of God’s promises in Christ.

As before, you’re unlikely to have time to reflect in detail on everything in this section of Leithart’s book, so don’t try. Instead, I suggest that you read a chapter through, look at the questions for that chapter, reflect on a few of them as your mood takes you, and then move on.

Don’t worry if you don’t complete all the study questions. It’s much better to look at a few questions in detail, following through the Bible wherever the threads take you. In particular, if you’re pressed for time, omit the questions marked with a *. You may also find it helpful to look at Leithart’s questions scattered throughout each chapter. Indeed, one or two of the questions below are based on Leithart’s questions. And, of course, keep your Bible open.

Outline

• Recap: Biblical theology to systematic soteriology via covenant theology
• Leithart, A House for My Name

Questions for reflection

i. “Reading the Gospel of Matthew without knowing the Old Testament is like reading the last chapter in a novel” (p. 241). You knew this already, of course; however, try to articulate new ways in which you’re realised this is true over the last few weeks.

Study questions

1. What happens in Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 8-11 (pp. 216-217)? Why?

For reflection: In Mark 13:1, Jesus comes out of the Temple before sitting down on the Mount of Olives (v. 3). What has this got to do with Ezekiel 11:22-24?

2. What happens when the LORD returns to his house in Ezekiel 43-47 (pp. 220-222)? Think in particular about:

• the glory of the LORD (p. 221; Ezekiel 43);
• the city (p. 221);
• the river that flows from the temple (pp. 221-222; Ezekiel 47).

3. The stories in the book of Daniel “are not in the Bible just to tell us how great Daniel is. Every one of them is also a promise to Israel” (p. 224). What are these promises?

4. In what ways is the return from exile under Ezra and Nehemiah similar to the exodus from Egypt (230-231)? In what ways is it different (pp. 231-232). Why are these similarities and differences significant?

Chapter 8 of A House for My Name highlights some of the connections between the Old Testament and the accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry in the Gospels. In particular, it focuses on the Gospel of John, showing that “the story of Jesus is the last chapter of the story of Israel” (p. 241).

5. “When Jesus asks his disciples, ‘Whom do people say that I am,’ one of their answers is ‘Jeremiah’” (p. 242). Why, according to Leithart, is this significant (p. 242)?

For reflection: Leithart gives several examples of “the conflict between the Christian church and the Jewish synagogue” in the New Testament (p. 242). How many others can you think of? Would you agree that this is “the main conflict in the New Testament” (p. 242)?

For reflection: “Many people … don’t believe that John is as concerned about the Jews and the temple as the other Gospel writers are” (pp. 243-244). Before you reached this chapter of Leithart’s book, how closely did this reflect your opinion of John’s Gospel?

6. What evidence does Leithart adduce to demonstrate that “the early chapters of John’s Gospel, especially chapters 5-10, are full of debates between Jesus and the Jews” (p. 244; see also p. 245). Are you persuaded?

7. How, according to Leithart, is John 1 (especially vv. 1, 11) connected with the Old Testament creation narrative, the relationship between Old and New Covenants, and the ministry of Jesus (p. 246)?

8. “John’s visions in revelation … build on Jesus’ prophesies about the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem, and they show that Jesus is going to build a new city and marry a new bride” (p. 249). Can you explain how Leithart reaches this conclusion (pp. 248-249)? Do you agree?

9. Why do the people think that Jesus is a “prophet” (John 6:14) when he feeds the five thousand (cf. 2 Kings 4:42-44)?

10. How many different theological and typological themes does Leithart find in the account of the wedding at Cana (pp. 251-252; John 2)? Are you persuaded?

11. How many different theological and typological themes does Leithart find in the account of the healing at the pool (pp. 253-255; John 5)? Are you persuaded?

12. How many different theological and typological themes does Leithart find in John 6 (p. 255)? Are you persuaded?

13. What, according to Leithart, does Jesus mean by “the world” (p. 256, see also pp. 257-258)? Why is this significant?

14. “The water from Jesus’ side refers back to John 7, but it is also connected to several Old Testament incidents” (p. 262). What are these incidents (pp. 262-263), and why might they be significant? What do you think of the connections Leithart identifies?

For reflection: Has A House for My Name changed the way you read the Bible? How? Why?

The LORD rewarded me for doing right;
he restored me because of my innocence.
For I have kept the ways of the LORD;
I have not turned from my God to follow evil.

I have followed all his regulations;
I have never abandoned his decrees.

I am blameless before God;
I have kept myself from sin.
The LORD rewarded me for doing right.
He has seen my innocence.

I have followed all his regulations;
I have never abandoned his decrees.

In the section entitled “Twofold justification and the Necessity of Obedience” (pp. 339-342), Lusk engages directly with those critics who insist “that our deeds will be irrelevant to our standing in the final judgment” (pp. 339-340). He denies that works should be described as “instrumental in final justification,” for that terminology is normally reserved for faith which alone unites us to Christ (p. 340, italics original). He suggests that works might “perhaps” be described as “evidence in the final court scene,” while expressing the reservation that this might give the misleading impression that good works are “extrinsic to the whole process of salvation” (pp. 340-341, italics original). He prefers to say that obedience is a “condition of final justification,” for “obedience is just what faith does; it is faith in action” (pp. 341-342, italics original).

I’m inclined to say that the best answer to the question of whether faith, works or anything else can properly be described as an “instrument” or a “condition” of justification is found in Jonathan Edwards in his Justification by Faith Alone, which clarifies the question considerably in just a few pages by re-centring the whole question explicitly around the doctrine of union with Christ.

Nonetheless, Lusk’s analysis is still helpful, not least because is reflects terminology found elsewhere in the Reformed tradition. I agree with Lusk’s rejection of the term “instrumental,” and agree with his acceptance of the term “condition.” However, I would be more positive than he seems to be about the term “evidence.” It seems to me that to describe good works as the evidence to which God will look on the Last Day does not run the risk of making them “extrinsic” as Lusk fears; after all, if God finds no evidence of righteousness, he will most certainly not justify us. To describe good works as “evidence” places them at centre stage in what is, after all, God’s courtroom.

1. Love Jesus, and express this by worshipping the Father through the Spirit within the church
2. Love your children by loving their mother; love their mother by loving her children
3. Teach your children to love the standard, not merely to conform to it
4. Your Garden of Yes should contain a tree of No, not the other way round
5. Give your children the Torah, not the Talmud
6. Acknowledge that your children need to be converted, but beware of millstones
7. Listen to your children
8. Their food, shelter and clothing take precedence over your toys
9. Remember your children’s physical frailty
10. Eat together, and not just for refuelling
11. Respect your sons and love your daughters
12. Tell and listen to stories together
13. Provide your children with a Christian education
14. Fill your home with Scripture, joy and music
15. Give your children quantity time
16. Discipline should be a gift
17. Discipline should be judicious, not an occasion for you to jump to conclusions
18. The pain of discipline should be acute, not chronic
19. The point of discipline is restored fellowship, not retribution
20. Divided discipline is dangerous; Mum and Dad need to stay together
21. Prepare your children for independence

In related news, the US President Barack Obama’s announcement last week that he is personally in favour of repealing the law of gravity received a cool reception among voters.

Discussions between cessationists and charismatics generally focus on which of the “gifts of the Spirit” found in the early church, and prominent particularly in Acts and 1 Corinthians, are found in the church today. Disagreement tends to be most vigorous in relation to the so-called “miraculous” gifts, such as speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, and prophecy (since even evangelicals, it seems, find it hard to get stroppy about the gift of administration). Charismatics argue that Christians today may still receive these gifts, whereas cessationists insist that they have now ceased.

Though there is value in considering these questions, it seems to me that the whole conversation gets off on the wrong foot, and for this I have Calvin to thank. Both sides in these charismatic/cessationist debates seem instinctively to construe the work of the Spirit in individualistic terms: “Which gifts could the Holy Spirit give me today?” As the conversations develop, this basic framework dictates the questions asked of individual biblical texts. Cessationists insist that there’s something unique about Pentecost (the presence of the apostles, the need for divine verification of their ministry, etc); charismatics respond by pointing to the presence of miraculous gifts many years later – in Corinth, for example (1 Cor 12-14); cessationists reply that the gift of tongues in Corinth appears to bear little resemblance to the manifestations in Acts 2, and that in any case Paul doesn’t seem too enthusiastic about tongues-speaking; and so it goes on. Throughout the discussion, the individualistic questions set the agenda.

Of course there are situations in which these questions need to be addressed. The problem is that they so dominate the discussion that they obscure other issues which are themselves far more significant for the interpretation of Scripture and our understanding of God’s purposes in history. Calvin sees these issues clearly, and he lays it all out in his Institutes, mainly in book III, chapter i. I’m not going to attempt to summarise everything he says; I’ll just try to give a flavour of the overall shape of it.

Calvin’s perspective on the outpouring of the Spirit is Christological, corporate, and salvation-historical. For Calvin, the key question is this: “How do we receive those benefits which the Father has bestowed on his only-begotten Son?” The answer is Christological: we must put on Christ, be united to Christ, be clothed in Christ, be made in Christ, and this is possible through the Spirit, “the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself.” This Christological emphasis necessarily entails a corporate focus. The Spirit of God was first poured out on Christ, and now overflows from the Head to the members of his body, the church, so that as a body we all now share in Christ’s status as Anointed Ones – Prophets, Priests and Kings. This outpouring signifies a salvation-historical transition, because it is precisely as the ascended King that Christ pours out his Spirit on his people. Thus the gift of the Spirit is not first and foremost an occasion for discussing whether we can do now what they did back then; it is the moment in history when the ascended Christ bestows everything that he has and is upon his bride, the church.

Naturally, this perspective doesn’t negate the cessationist/charismatic debates entirely. But it does place them in a new perspective. Moreover, it highlights that both charismatics and cessationists are (sometimes? often? almost always?) in danger of being wrong for the same reason: a short-sighted focus on the individual manifestations of the gift of the Holy Spirit obscures other themes that ought to be far more dominant in our reading of Scripture and our understanding of history.

You can find a link to an online version here.

• Ghosts
• Sorcery and magic
• Divination (seeking to gain insight into a question or situation through occult rituals)
• Demons
• Demon-worship and occultism
• Demon possession
• Poltergeists (manifestations of paranormal phenomena)
• Psychokenesis (physical objects moving around in an unexplained way)
• Shamanism (communicating with spirits)
• Séances and necromancy (communicating with the dead)
• Beasts, dragons and other animals unknown to science
• Teleportation (objects or people moving inexplicably from one place to another)
• Extra-sensory perception, telepathy and mind-reading
• Miraculous healings
• Trances
• Visions
• Inexplicable noises and explosions
• Spontaneous, inexplicable fires
• Levitation (physical objects floating up in the air)
• Sudden, severe and inexplicable storms
• Talking animals
• Astrology and fortune-telling
• Clairvoyants
• Mediums
• Witches and wizards
• Unidentified flying objects

Hear more at Forum this coming Sunday.

Introduction

We’re continuing in session 21 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course with our study of the doctrine of salvation (soteriology), looking at the next section of Peter J. Leithart, A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000), pp. 129-214.

You will recall from the previous session that this part of the course is deliberately structured to help you see how a Reformed evangelical doctrine of salvation emerges from a systematic reading of the whole Bible, taking into account the progressive character of God’s revelation to humanity and the coherence and interconnectedness of the Scriptures. Here’s a reminder of where we’re going in the next few sessions:

Bible overview. An overview of the whole Bible, attempting to piece together a few of the countless themes that trace the story of God’s saving work through the Scriptures from beginning to end. We’ll also look in some detail at biblical imagery and biblical typology with the help of Peter J. Leithart’s A House for My Name.

Covenant theology. Historically, Reformed theologians have integrated the apparently diverse strands of the Bible’s story by tracing the theme of God’s covenants with man. We’ll be doing the same thing with the help of O. Palmer Roberson’s book The Christ of the Covenants, as we make the step from biblical theology to systematic soteriology via covenant theology.

Systematic soteriology. The Reformed didn’t stop with covenant theology, and neither shall we. Rather, we’ll see how a robust Reformed evangelical doctrine of salvation emerges naturally and organically from covenant theology as we return to John Calvin’s Institutes to consider such familiar topics as election, the offices of Christ, the atonement, repentance, faith and justification, all within the framework of the central doctrine of union with Christ.

As before, you’re unlikely to have time to reflect in detail on everything in this section of Leithart’s book. I therefore suggest that you don’t try. Instead, approach the questions like this: (1) Read a chapter through; (2) Look at the questions for that chapter, and reflect on a few of them as your mood takes you; (3) Move on to the next chapter.

You’ll benefit more from this book if you look at a few questions in detail than if you look at lots of questions superficially. So don’t worry if you don’t complete all the questions. In particular, if you’re pressed for time, omit the questions marked with a *. You may also find it helpful to look at Leithart’s questions scattered throughout each chapter. And keep your Bible open.

Outline

• Recap: Biblical theology to systematic soteriology via covenant theology
• Leithart, A House for My Name

Questions for reflection

i. What do the following passages have in common: Genesis 3:15; Judges 9:53; 1 Samuel 17:49; Psalm 74:14; John 19:2?

Study questions

1. What parallels does Leithart identify between the capture of the ark by the Philistines (1 Samuel 3-6) and Israel’s exodus from Egypt (pp. 129-130)? What “important difference” does he highlight (p. 130)? What according to Leithart, is this difference “a picture of” (p. 130)?

For reflection: What do you think of the parallel Leithart draws between this OT narrative and the work of Christ? If Leithart is right, what implications would this have for how you read the Bible?

2. What is sinful about Israel’s request for a king in 1 Samuel 8 (pp. 133-134)? How does the LORD respond to Israel’s request (pp. 134-135)?

3. In what ways does Saul initially appear to be “an ideal choice to lead and judge Israel” (pp. 136-137)?

4. “In 1 Samuel 13-15, Saul commits three sins” (p. 137). What are these three sins (pp. 137-140)? How are they related to the “three areas” of the earth: “garden, land, and world” (p. 139)? What is significant about this (pp. 139-140)?

*5. As Saul goes to meeting Samuel, he meets some women at a well (1 Samuel 9:11-13). How is this occasion similar to the scenes in Genesis 24, Genesis 29 and John 4? How is it different? Why is this significant?

6. “Goliath wears ‘scale armour,’ dressing himself like a serpent (1 Samuel 17:15)” (p. 142). Why is this significant? (You might find it helpful to consider you answer to question i, above.)

7. In what ways are God’s promises to David (1 Samuel 7) similar to the promises he made to Abraham (pp. 148-149)? In what ways are they different?

For reflection: How does this help us to understand the overall “shape” of God’s saving purposes for the world?

8. “Solomon has moved beyond Adam, and God allows him, as it were, to eat from the tree of knowledge” (p. 154). What does Leithart mean by this? Do you agree?

9. In what ways is Solomon’s temple different from the Mosaic tabernacle (pp. 155-156)? Why is this significant?

*10. Why is the episode of the two prostitutes placed at this particular point in the narrative (1 Kings 3:16-28)?

11. “Elijah … follows closely in the footsteps of Moses” (p. 169). How (pp. 169-172)?

12. “Two things help to explain why Jonah flees to Tarshish rather than going to Nineveh” (p. 180). What are these two things (pp. 180-182)?

*13. “Just as Jonah is thrown into the heart of the sea, so Israel will be flooded by the Gentile nations … Converts in Nineveh will be like the fish, rescuing Israel from drowning in the Assyrian sea” (p. 185). What does Leithart mean by this? Do you agree?

Introduction

Session 20 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course marks the beginning of a new area of study. Having completed our consideration of the doctrine of the incarnation, we’re beginning our next major subject: the doctrine of salvation, or soteriology.

This part of the course is deliberately structured to help you see how a Reformed evangelical doctrine of salvation emerges from a systematic reading of the whole Bible, taking into account the progressive character of God’s revelation to humanity and the coherence and interconnectedness of the Scriptures. It may be helpful to give a brief overview of where we’re going in the next few sessions:

Bible overview. An overview of the whole Bible, attempting to piece together a few of the countless themes that trace the story of God’s saving work through the Scriptures from beginning to end. We’ll also look in some detail at biblical imagery and biblical typology with the help of Peter J. Leithart’s A House for My Name.

Covenant theology. Historically, Reformed theologians have integrated the apparently diverse strands of the Bible’s story by tracing the theme of God’s covenants with man. We’ll be doing the same thing with the help of O. Palmer Roberson’s book The Christ of the Covenants, as we make the step from biblical theology to systematic soteriology via covenant theology.

Systematic soteriology. The Reformed didn’t stop with covenant theology, and neither shall we. Rather, we’ll see how a robust Reformed evangelical doctrine of salvation emerges naturally and organically from covenant theology as we return to Calvin’s Institutes to consider such familiar topics as election, the offices of Christ, the atonement, repentance, faith and justification, all within the framework of the central doctrine of union with Christ.

We begin, then, with Peter Leithart’s superb little book A House for My Name.

There’s a lot of material here, and though it’s pretty easy to read, you probably won’t have time to reflect in detail on everything in these chapters. I therefore suggest you don’t try. Instead, try this: (1) read a chapter through; (2) Look at the questions for that chapter, and reflect on a few of them as your mood takes you; (3) Move on to the next chapter.

I’ve helped you a bit by providing a summary of the introduction (pp. 17-42), so though it’s very worthwhile you can safe a bit of time by leaving that for another day.

One more word of advice: You’ll benefit more from this book if you look at a few questions in detail than if you look at lots of questions superficially. So don’t worry if you don’t complete all the material. You may also find it helpful to look at Leithart’s questions scattered throughout each chapter. Keep your Bible open as you read this book, and read them both with imagination and energy. You never know what you might discover.

Outline

• Biblical theology to systematic soteriology via covenant theology
• Leithart, A House for My Name

Questions for reflection

i. What do Genesis 3:19; Ezekiel 44:18 and Luke 22:44 have in common? Try to tell the story of human history with reference to only these three texts.

ii. What does Genesis 3:24 have to do with Genesis 22:6? What was Isaac thinking of when he looked at his Dad?

iii. What light does Genesis 3:18 shed upon Matthew 27:29?

iv. How would you respond to someone who thought that the texts cited in the previous questions were completely unrelated to one another?

Study questions on the introduction (pp. 17-42)

The introduction to Leithart’s book is well worth reading, though we won’t spend much time on it during the tutorial. At times it feels a little technical, so here’s a rough outline to guide you on your way:

Leithart outlines two main mistakes in reading the Old Testament:

(1) Liberalism  and Marcionism consign the Old Testament to irrelevance. Alarmingly, some contemporary evangelicals look little different in certain respects (pp. 17-21).

(2) Antisupercessionism, exemplified by Kenneth Soulen, claims that ethnic Israelites are still in covenant with God irrespective of their response to Jesus (pp. 21-26).

To read the Old Testament as Christians, we must get beyond the so-called “grammatical-historical” method of exegesis, which, though fine (indeed, necessary) as far as it goes, doesn’t go far enough. In particular, it fails to place sufficient weight upon the recurring types and images of Scripture, and upon the storyline of the whole (pp. 27-40).

The rest of the book is a whirlwind tour of the Bible, highlighting many of the themes, storylines, images and types that give coherence and meaning to the whole. The following questions are designed to encourage you to reflect upon some of the themes Leithart identifies, and to work out whether you agree with the direction in which Leithart takes them.

Study questions on chapter 1: Book of Beginnings

1. How is the world like a three-storey house (pp. 43-45)? How does this help us to understand the ten plagues on Egypt (pp. 47-48)?

2. “Very often the land pictures Israel and the sea pictures the nations” (p. 48). Are you persuaded? Can you think of any other biblical texts upon which this claim might shed light?

3.  Can you explain what Leithart means by the three-fold structure of the earth: “the Garden, the land of Eden, and the larger world” (p. 52)? How does this relate to the three “falls” described on p. 56?

4. “Throughout Genesis, the patriarchs … meet their wives by wells in oases” (p. 54). What light does this shed on John 4?

5. “Joseph is a picture of what Adam is supposed to become” (p. 64). How (see also p. 65)? Do you agree?

Study questions on chapter 2: Out of Egypt I Have Called My Son

6. Outline Leithart’s exposition of Genesis 31:33-35 (pp. 71-72). Are you persuaded by his reading? Why or why not? Could his reading be taken further? If so, what does this passage contribute to a critique of idolatry that could not easily have been contributed any other way?

7. Why does Exodus 1:7 use so many words to say so little (p. 74)? What about Exodus 1:13-14 (p. 74)?

8. How is Exodus 20-24 like a marriage feast (pp. 78-80)?

9. Is what ways does the three-part structure of the tabernacle reflect the structure of the universe and the structure of the earth (pp. 82-86)?

10. What do the terms qorban and “bread of God” tell us about the significance of Israel’s sacrifices (pp. 87-88)?

11. “Jesus is always eating fish” (p. 88). Why?

Study questions on chapter 3: From Sinai to Shiloh

12. “The big sin of Israel comes … when Israel arrives at Kadesh” (p. 103). What is this “big sin,” and how is it related to previous events recorded in Scripture?

13. Instead of organising the army, Joshua focuses on what the priests are going to do” (p. 110). Why is this significant (see also p. 111)? What implications might it have for the contemporary church?

14. What did Gideon do right? What did he do wrong (pp. 115-118)?

15. Why is Ruth 4:18-22 significant in the light of Genesis 38 and Deuteronomy 23:2?

• The question concerns “why God was willing that the Roman Empire should extend so widely and last so long” (V, preface).
• “Neither chance nor destiny [in the sense of impersonal/astrological fate],” but rather “without the slightest doubt, the kingdoms of men are established by divine providence” (V.1). Supporting arguments V.2-8.
• Against Cicero’s doctrine of free will (V.9). It’s true that “human acts of will are the causes of human activites,” but it does not follow from this that our activities are independent of God’s sovereign will. For our decisions are both foreknown and foreordained by God. Thus our wills are neither irrelevant nor absolute; everything lies within the providence of God (cf. esp. V.11).
• The question remains, though, “for what reason the true God deigned to help the Romans in the extension of their empire,” given that “in his control are all the kingdoms of the earth” (V.12). It was certainly not because of their idols, in whom “there is no power at all” (V.12).
• One reason was to bestow upon relatively honourable Roman leaders a temporal reward (V.15). But this is not all; it was also to set an example before the citizens of the Heavenly City, in order to encourage them to be equally devoted to their Homeland (V.16). For if the Romans would give so much to win glory from men, how much more should Christians give to attain Heavenly Glory (V.18).
• Note that there is all the difference in the world between desire for glory and desire for domination (V.19).
• Thus God determines the rise and fall of empires. If his reasons are hidden from us, that does not make them unjust (V.21).
• It is worthwhile to recall these lessons from history, since many are ignorant of the past (V.22).

And I will enter into judgment with them there, on behalf of my people and my heritage Israel,

because they have scattered them among the nations and have divided up my land,

³and have cast lots for my people, and have traded a boy for a prostitute, and have sold a girl for wine and have drunk it.

⁴“What are you to me, O Tyre and Sidon, and all the regions of Philistia? Are you paying me back for something? If you are paying me back, I will return your payment on your own head swiftly and speedily.

⁵For you have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried my rich treasures into your temples.

⁶You have sold the people of Judah and Jerusalem to the Greeks in order to remove them far from their own border.

⁷Behold, I will stir them up from the place to which you have sold them, and I will return your payment on your own head.

⁸ I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the people of Judah,

and they will sell them to the Sabeans, to a nation far away,

for the LORD has spoken.”

• “Here and there,” ending in Lydda (9:32).
• From Lydda to Joppa at the request of two men (9:38-39).
• From Joppa to Cornelius’s house at Caesarea at the request of the delegation from Cornelius (10:8, 23-24).

One of the interesting features of this narrative is the extent to which Peter’s movements are dictated by others. Just as God needs to persuade Peter that Gentiles are welcome as citizens of the kingdom, so also other people are needed to persuade Peter to move outside the borders of Israel to minister to Gentiles.

When Peter returns to Jerusalem, he recounts this geographical movements to an initially sceptical audience, who are finally persuaded that God had indeed granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life (11:1-18).

Luke the reports that this geographical movement is then mirrored by the whole church, who having been scattered from Jerusalem by the persecution in 8:1 began to travel abroad also (11:19-20).

Read the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:21-35). Was the unforgiving servant initially forgiven by his master (vv. 27, 32)? Was this forgiveness subsequently withdrawn (v. 34)? What relevance does this have for our relationship with our heavenly Father (v. 35)? Does this surprise you? (Don’t worry if it does; Jonathan Edwards might shed a little light on it.)

2. Baptism makes N a Christian.

3. The church is the body of Christ.

4. Christ is really present at the Lord’s Supper.

5. My kids believe in Jesus.

6. Cessationists and charismatics are both wrong for the same reason.

7. Psalms are for singing.

8. “Ministry” and evangelism aren’t the only things worth doing.

9. Justification by faith is worth fighting and dying for.

10. People with an axe to grind will always misunderstand you.

• We want as many instruments in church as possible
• The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is the theology of music
• If our theology and liturgy is worth anything, it must be conversational – like God in Trinity
• Theologians: Can’t we have a conversation?
• If it has breath, it’s music. And the Holy Spirit is breath.
• When the Kingdom comes, music comes
• Would you ever sing a sermon?
• When the Spirit is released, music is released. Reformation Europe.
• Don’t let music flow from the world into the church. That’s the wrong direction.
• The church must have her own musical style, for the Tabernacle and Temple had their own distinctive smell.
• Ask yourself what you want your kids to learn by the time they are 18, then you know what to do in your liturgy
• Musical instruments are an extension of the human body, which is itself an instrument
• People want Natural Law as an alternative to Scripture, or a “parallel stream”, because what the Bible actually says is obnoxious to modern man. People want to fit in with the world.
• The biblical chronology question is the camel’s nose in the tent, the first domino to fall.
• The Bible is stuffed full of history. Anti-gnosticism.
• Conservative evangelical kids go off to college,  and they become liberal once they start having sex (NTW)
• The more prosperous a nation is, the more the Christians want to talk about the imminent end of the world and how everything is all about suffering.
• Often a Prophet predicts the destruction of a city, and the fulfillment of that prophecy establishes the truthfulness of his predictions of the longer-term future.
• Christian political engagement runs the risk of being ideas devoid of personhood, a Christian moral framework without a personal God.

By contrast, Scripture depicts sin in ethical terms, and with relational consequences. Redemption, therefore, must take the same form – relationship restoration and ethical transformation.

This is all the more significant since the book of Acts itself is a journey narrative – it tracks the progress of Jesus’ “witnesses” from “Jerusalem” through “Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8).

Some steps along the way:

• v. 3 Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land that I will show you.
• v. 4 Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living.
• v. 7 “But I will judge the nation that they serve,” said God, “and after that they shall come out and worship me in this place.”
• v. 15 And Jacob went down into Egypt.
• v. 16 and they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.
• v. 29 At this retort Moses fled and became an exile in the land of Midian.
• v. 34 I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you to Egypt.
• v. 36 This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years.
• v. 39 Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt.
• v. 43 I will send you into exile beyond Babylon.

The travel narrative of Israel begins in the nations, fails to terminate in the Land, and instead ends in Babylon.

By contrast, the travel narrative of the new Israel begins in Jerusalem and ends in the (Spirit-transformed) nations; and the travel narrative of Stephen begins in Jerusalem and ends in heaven in the presence of the ascended Lord Jesus Christ (v. 59).

For Luke draws our attention to the fact that Barnabas was a Levite. Under the Old Covenant, he would have been entitled to receive tithes from the people in order that he should be free from regular work to carry on his service in and around the Temple. Now, however, realising that the time for his Temple-service is coming to an end, he steps away from his Levitical privileges and takes the place of an ordinary man of Israel, selling his field and laying the proceeds before the new Levites, he apostles.

It’s little surprise, then, that this Barnabas should have been granted a place of privilege in the New Age as a Minister of the gospel. For the Lord lifts up those who humble themselves before him.

First, pick a day. Drink plenty of water during the day, but eat nothing for breakfast and lunch, and then eat a normal meal in the evening. In effect, you’ll be fasting for 24 hours, from one evening to the next.

A great deal has been written on the subject of fasting. Here are just a few pieces of practical advice:

• Prayerfulness. Use the time that you would have spent eating to read the Bible and pray. If the weather is good and there’s somewhere you can go for a walk, do so. If you’re not sure how to pray or what to pray for, just read through a few Psalms – perhaps beginning with Psalm 120. If you have a favourite Christian song or Psalm, sing it a few times.
• Cheerfulness. You’ll probably find that you feel fine for most of the morning, but by mid-afternoon you’ll probably be feeling pretty hungry – and perhaps a little grumpy. Remember what Jesus said: “When you fast, do not look gloomy” (Matthew 6:16). Take this opportunity to train yourself in cheerfulness – if we can learn to be joyful when we’re hungry, we’ll certainly find it easier the rest of the time.
• Thankfulness. I guarantee that you’ll enjoy your evening meal more than anything else you’ve eaten for a long time. Take the opportunity before you eat in the evening to thank God for the abundance of his grace and goodness. You might like to read a Psalm of thankfulness, such as Psalm 138.

Introduction

We turn in session 35 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course to the doctrine of justification by faith, and to Calvin, Institutes, III.xi-xiii (1:725-768). This subject was hotly debated during the Reformation, and Calvin has an extensive section on the topic (and related issues such as the place of good works and Christian freedom) running from III.xi-ixx – a total of 125 pages. In this session we’re covering a shorter section, III.xi-xiii, and within this we’ll focus our attention in the tutorial just on III.xi. Questions related to III.xii-xiii are included below, but they’re marked with a *, meaning that you should omit them if you’re pressed for time.

Questions for reflection

i. What is “justification”? What does “justified by faith” mean? What does “justified by works” mean?

ii. Does the Bible teach that we are justified by faith alone, and not by works? If so, where?

iii. Does the Bible teach that we are justified by works, and not by faith alone? If so, where?

iv. Would you affirm the Reformation maxim sola fide – “by faith alone”? If so, what do you think it means?

Study questions

1. How does Calvin define justification in III.xi.2? How does he distinguish justification by faith from justification by works (III.xi.2)?

2. What texts does Calvin cite in support of his definition of justification? Do they support the point he is seeking to make?

3. What other words does Calvin believe are also used in Scripture to refer to justification (III.xi.4)?

For reflection: What do you think about Calvin’s use of these different terms? Would you want to maintain sharp distinctions between them, or do you agree with Calvin that their meanings overlap or even coincide?

In III.xi.5-12, Calvin examines and critiques the doctrine of justification held by Osiander, a German Lutheran theologian who occasionally finds himself on the sharp end of Calvin’s pen.

4. Can you work out from Calvin’s critique what Osiander actually thought (III.xi.5-6)? How does Calvin respond to Osiander’s doctrine of justification in III.xi.5-6?

For reflection: I once heard an evangelical Minister declare than in justification “we receive God’s own righteousness.” What might Calvin have said over coffee after the service?

5. How does Calvin respond to Osiander’s objection that faith does not justify in itself? (III.xi.7)

6. How, according to Calvin, does justification relate to union with Christ (III.xi.10)?

Osiander believed that “justification” cannot be “a legal term,” since (as Calvin explains) Osiander insisted that to be justified “we must actually be righteous” (III.xi.11, italics added). It wouldn’t be right, in Osiander’s view, for God to justify people who remain wicked in themselves. Calvin responds in section 11.

7. How does Calvin respond to Osiander’s claim that “it would be insulting to God, and contrary to his nature, to justify those who still remain wicked” (III.xi.11)?

In III.xi.13-20, Calvin addresses another set of misunderstandings centred around the medieval scholastic view that we can be justified by good works.

8. What, according to Calvin, does “the greater part of mankind imagine” (III.xi.13)? How does Calvin respond (III.xi.13)?

9. What is the “subtle evasion” do “the Sophists” employ to get around Calvin’s argument (III.xi.14)? How does Calvin respond?

10. In III.xi.15 Calvin explains the medieval Catholic Lombard’s view that “justification is given to us through Christ in two ways.” Can you explain what Lombard means by these “two ways”?

For reflection: What implications would Lombard’s view be likely to have for our assurance of salvation? Why?

11. How does Calvin respond to Lombard’s view in III.xi.16?

12. What does Calvin believe is “the distinction between law and gospel” (III.xi.17)?

For reflection: Bearing in mind Romans 4:1–8, what do you think of Calvin’s distinction between law and gospel? (Hint: how was Abraham justified?)

13. How, in Calvin’s view, is justification related to the forgiveness of sins (III.xi.22) and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (III.xi.23)?

The following questions focus on III.xii-xiii, which we probably won’t have time to cover in detail during the tutorial.

*14. Why is it so important to contemplate the judgment and perfect righteousness of God (see especially III.xii.1, 4, 8)

In III.xiii, Calvin explores two themes undergirded by the doctrine of justification by faith: (1) the glory of God; and (2) peace for our consciences.

*15. How, according to Calvin, does the doctrine of justification by faith secure the glory of God (III.xiii.1-2)?

*16. How, according to Calvin, does the doctrine of justification by faith secure peace for our consciences (III.xiii.3-5)?

Don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll get it back. I mean, just look at who they’re going to be lending it on to. (Scroll down to the “Data Summary” about half-way down the page.)

(£10 billion / 30 million taxpayers = ~£330)

Check out the video promo here.

And here’s an extract from the blurb:

We live in a sceptical world. Atheism has taken on an evangelistic tone in the UK. Secularists claim to have a monopoly on reason. So how should the Church respond?

Premier Christian Radio presents an apologetics day conference aimed at equipping everyday Christians with reasons for the truth of their faith. The conference will also focus on how to share these truths in a fruitful and engaging way.

This year’s Conference partner is Reasons To Believe - a Christian apologetics teaching and research organisation with the mission to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research consistently uphold, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible.

A few years ago, David Field (an elder at Emmanuel) produced a free audio Bible, which has proved immensely popular – tens of thousands of downloads and several emails per week. We’ve just started working with a talented app developer (identity soon to be disclosed), with the aim of making the audio Bible available free as an app for iPhone, iPad, Android and so on.

We’re now at the stage where we need some of the graphics to package the app. In particular, we need an icon file (57×57 pix for iPhone and 72×72 for iPad) and a splash screen (480×320 pix portrait). A great opportunity for a talented designer to get his or her work seen by tens of thousands of Christians all over the world, while at the same time being a great blessing to the church by getting a superb free resource into lots of eager hands.

If you’re interested, please get in touch.

1. There really are lots of different gods, which are worshipped by people of different religions

2. There is only one true God, and different religions call him by different names

3. People who don’t follow Jesus can be saved by living a good life

4. People today who have never heard of Jesus can be saved by living a good life

5. People who don’t follow Jesus can be saved by following their own religion

6. People today who have never heard of Jesus can be saved by following their own religion

7. People who don’t call themselves Christians might be following Jesus without realising it

8. All the religions of the world are different paths to the one true God

Listen here to find the answer.

• 2:11 Paul’s description of the physical (fleshly) marks which once legitimately distinguished Jews and Gentiles, but which do no longer. Appropriately qualified “in the flesh … called … called … in the flesh … with hands”.
• 2:12-13 The OT Covenantal / Land shape of Gentile exclusion in v. 12 must shape our reading of “brought near” in v. 13. It’s Israel and her privileges from which Gentiles(-in-the-flesh) were once excluded (commonwealth … Israel … strangers … covenants … promise).
• 2:13 The blood of Christ breaks down those barriers which the blood of animals could not. Thus 2:14.
• 2:14-15 The breaking-down of the salvation-historical barrier (temple) entails the breaking-down of the ongoing social barriers between Jews and Gentiles. Cf. Galatians 2; ordo salutis and historia salutis.
• 2:16 Reconciled to God as “one body,” therefore in the same way and on the same basis; not merely on the same basis while remaining as two separate bodies.
• 2:18-19 follows from 2:18: “both … one Spirit”; “no longer strangers and sojourners” [not "aliens"; note OT echoes again]; “fellow-citizens.” Not sojourners welcomed to the Feaast of Booths (OT); but members of the community whose Feast it is.
• 2:20-22 New Community entails new Temple.

• Without the God-given habit of corporate worship and the God-given mandate of corporate accountability, we will not prove faithful over the long haul.
• Notions of churchless Christianity are unrealistic. It’s immaturity actually, like the newly engaged couple who think romance preserves the marriage, when the couple celebrating their golden anniversary know it’s the institution of marriage that preserves the romance.
• The church is not an incidental part of God’s plan. Jesus didn’t invite people to join an anti-religion, anti-doctrine, anti-institutional bandwagon of love, harmony, and re-integration … The Lord “didn’t add them to the church without saving them, and he didn’t save them without adding them to the church” (John Stott).
• The New Testament knows nothing of churchless Christianity. The invisible church is for invisible Christians. The visible church is for you and me. Put away the Che Guevara t-shirts, stop the revolution, and join the rest of the plodders. Fifty years from now you’ll be glad you did.

“Preparation for gospel ministry needs time … There can be no short cuts … There is a large amount of knowledge which needs to be acquired by anyone going into full-time gospel ministry.

Of course, ministry requires a great deal more than just knowledge. A godly character is the prime requirement (1 Timothy 3.1-7; Titus 1.5-9) and gifts of teaching, preaching and pastoring are essential. A Bible college cannot supply these, though it can develop them. But, in addition to these elements, and subservient to them, knowledge and understanding must also be gained.”

Read more here.

• God revealed his Son “in” (Gk. en) Paul (1:16; not “to” him); likewise the churches of Judea glorified God “in” him (1:24), and he bears “in” his body the marks of Jesus.
• “Revelation” (2:2) <=> “revealed” (1:16)?
• Circumcision … freedom … slavery … submission … truth of the gospel (2:3-5) <=> imprisoned … law … faith … guardian … slave … free (3:21-29) <=> guardian … enslaved … Son … law … slave … sons (4:1-7) <=> law … slave … free … flesh … Spirit (4:21-31) <=> slavery … circumcision … bound … severed from Christ (5:1-4). Etc.
• Participation in Christ, death and life (resurrection) with him, through faith in (union with) him (2:19-20).
• “In vain” (3:4; 4:11; 1 Cor 15:2).
• Paul’s “we also” (4:3) highlights that the OC-NC transition is for him both corporate and individual. So also Rom 7? Hence the confusion, perhaps.
• “Weak and miserable elemental principles of the world” (4:9) is what their OC rites have become now that Christ has come.
• “You received me as an angel of God” (4:14), and you’re big on angels (OC law-mediators, 3:19), aren’t you? So if you’ll listen to them, why not listen to me?
• “Shut you out” (4:17); cf. “exclusion” / “separation” and “welcome” / “fellowship” throughout (e.g. 2:9; 2:11-14; 4:30; 5:4; 5:13ff [love]).
• We still worship in Jerusalem (4:26) – just a different Jerusalem. Because it’s “above,” it’s therefore accessible to all from everywhere. Cf. Weinandy, transcendent therefore immanent; “Present as the wholly other.”

That’ll do for now.

[Correction: Haman, not Mordecai. Let the hearer understand.]

A prophet who ate locusts announced the climactic judgment and coming deliverance of the LORD (Mark 1).

In v. 4, Nehemiah’s prayer interrupts the account of the opposition without the slightest hint of introduction. It’s as if the prayer needs no introduction – prayer is the real thing that’s going on, you don’t need to make any excuses for it, you just do it – and it will call a halt to the opposition as surely and decisively as the words leap off the page.

And then, in v. 6, Nehemiah records the outcome of the prayer with the same understated, laconic directness: “So we built the wall.” Welll, of course they did. What could be more natural? The prayer of faith is the immovable object that stands in the path of the not-quite-unstoppable force of the world’s hatred. The victory of the LORD’s people is the inevitable consequence.

“Is it going to be a true, Biblical postmillennialism? Will it have room for Ecclesiastes? Will it have room for cross-bearing? Will it see that for us God really is incomprehensible, though not inapprehensible? Will it be clay in the Master’s hand?

Or will the modern postmillennialism be Americanized? Will it be a positive thinking, victory-oriented, get rich, meet you at the top, yuppie postmillennialism?”

James B. Jordan is speaking at a Ministerial Colloquium at Emmanuel on Wednesday 2 May 2012.

I feel a sermon coming on.

However, if I did observe Lent, some of these 40+ reasons for Lent from Peter Leithart would probably play a part somewhere.

• Israel as “the navel of the earth,” Ezekiel 5:5; 38:12 (NB LXX and Vulgate have “navel”).
• Ezekiel’s hierarchical world: wrestling with a tiered reality, ed. Stephen L. Cook, p. 129.
• S. David Sperling, IDBSUpp 621-623.
• Philip S. Alexander, “Jerusalem as the Omphalos of the world: On the history of a geographical concept,” in Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

This raises an intriguing question: Where does the OT teach that the Christ would be raised on the third day? The simple answer is that it doesn’t – at least not explicitly. It therefore seems likely that Jesus is expecting his disciples to pick up implicit clues about the OT significance of “the third day” – clues that hint at a third-day resurrection without expressing it in so many words.

So where are these clues?

A first step towards discovering the answer is simply to list all the events that are said in Scripture to have taken place “on the third day,” or after “three days,” or with some other significant connection to “three days” or “the third day.” It turns out that there are quite a lot of them – about 50, in fact.

The plot thickens when, for comparison, we compare these figures with those for other days. It turns out that there are only 8 similar references to the second day, and only 3 references to the fourth day. Of these, some are significant only because of their connection with a more significant event that took place on the third day (e.g. Hos 6:1; 2 Sam 1:1).

At the very least, then, a thoughtful reader of the Old Testament should probably have figured out that there is something significant about “the third day” in Scripture. To discover where exactly this significance lay, we’d have to look in more detail at the references in question. In case you’re inclined to do so, here they are:

The third day

• “Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw” the place where Isaac would (not) be sacrificed. Gen 22:4.
• A three days’ journey between Laban and Jacob. Gen 30:36.
• Laban was told that Jacob had fled. Gen 31:22.
• Simeon and Levi killed the men of Shechem. Gen 34:25.
• The time between Joseph’s interpretation of the cupbearer’s and the bakers’ dreams and their fulfilment. Gen 40:12-19.
• Pharaoh made a feast for his servants and “lifted up the head of the chief cupbearer and the chief baker” to celebrate his birthday. Gen 40:20.
• The time for which Joseph placed his brothers in custody. Gen 42:17.
• Joseph detained Simeon while the rest of his brothers (minus Benjamin) went back to Jacob. Gen 42:18.
• Moses asked Pharaoh for permission to make a three days’ journey into the wilderness. Ex 3:18; 5:3; 8:27.
• Three days of darkness in the land of Egypt. Ex 10:22-23.
• Israel travelled for three days from the Red Sea without finding water. Ex 15:22.
• The LORD came down upon Mount Sinai with thunder and lightning and a trumpet and an earthquake and fire. Ex 19:11, 14-16.
• The remainder of the peace offering is burned up with fire (and thus ascends to heaven); it must not be eaten. Lev 7:17-18; 19:6-7.
• Eliab the son of Heron offered a stack of stuff for the consecration of the tabernacle. Lev 7:24.
• Moses took a three days’ journey from the Mountain of the LORD. Num 10:33.
• A person who has become unclean through contact with a dead body must conduct the first of two ceremonial washings. Num 19:12, 19.
• “Eleven bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish” are to be offered at the Feast of Tabernacles. Num 29:20.
• Israel took a three days’ journey in the wilderness of Etham. Num 33:8.
• Israel were to cross over the Jordan within three days. Jos 1:11.
• At Rahab’s instructions the Israelite spies hid in the hills for three days. Jos 2:16, 22.
• Joshua and the Israelites lodged for three days at Shittim before crossing the Jordan into the Land of Canaan. Jos 3:2.
• The Israelites reached the cities of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-jearim, having earlier made a covenant with the Gibeonites. Jos 9:17.
• For three days the Philistines failed to solve Samson’s riddle. Jdg 14:14.
• The Levite initially stayed with his Father-in-law for three days. Jdg 19:4.
• The Israelites attacked the Benjaminites for the third time. Jdg 20:30.
• Saul lost his donkeys three days before meeting Samuel. 1 Sam 9:20.
• Jonathan went to meet David in the field. 1 Sam 20:5, 12, 19.
• David and his men came to Ziklag, and discovered that the Amalekites had destroyed it and taken captive its inhabitants. 1 Sam 30:1.
• The Egyptian had not eated for three days and nights before being discovered by David’s men. 1 Sam 30:12-13.
• The man from Saul’s camp arrived at David’s camp with the news that Saul had died. 2 Sam 1:2.
• King David gave Amasa three days to gather the men of Judah. 2 Sam 20:4.
• The prophet Gad gave David the option of three days of pestilence, three months of flight, or three years of famine. 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Ch 21:12.
• The second baby was born to the two women who later came to Solomon. 1 Ki 3:18.
• The people of Israel came to Rehoboam again, and received from him a harsh answer. 1 Ki 12:12; 2 Ch 10:12.
• For three days the men failed to find Elijah. 2 Ki 2:17.
• Isaiah told Hezekiah to enter the house of the LORD. 2 Ki 20:5, 8.
• The Israelites were with David for three days, prepared for war to make David king. 1 Ch 12:39.
• Jehoshaphat’s men spent three days collecting the spoils from the men of Moab, Ammon and Mount Seir. 2 Ch 20:25.
• The Temple of the LORD was “finished on the third day of the month of Adar.” Ezra 6:15.
• Ezra remained with the Israelites at the river that runs to Ahava for three days. Ezra 8:15.
• Ezra remained with the Israelites in Jerusalem for three days. Ezra 8:32.
• Anyone who failed to come to Judah within three days following Ezra’s proclamation to the returned exiles forfeited his property. Ezra 10:8-9.
• Nehemiah was in Jerusalem for three days. Neh 2:11.
• Esther asked Mordecai and the Jews of Susa to fast for three days. Est 4:16.
• Esther took her life in her hands and entered the king’s palace. Est 5:1.
• The LORD “will raise us up,” according to Hosea. Hos 6:2.
• Amos castigated the Israelites for the tithes they brought every three days. Am 4:4.
• Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights. Jon 1:14; Mt 12:40.
• Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, such that something (a journey across it? a journey round it? the formal engagements associated with an official visit? no one really knows) took three days. Jon 3:3.

The second day

• David remained two days in Ziklag after Saulk’s death. 2 Sam 1:1.
• After two days the Lord will revive us. Hos 6:2.
• The LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel. Jos 10:32.
• On the second day, David’s place at Saul’s table was empty. 1 Sam 20:27.
• Jonathan ate no food on the second day of the month. 1 Sam 20:34.
• The heads of the fathers’ houses came together to Ezra in order to study the law. Neh 8:13.
• The king asked Esther again, “What is your wish?” Est 7:2.
• The LORD instructed Ezekiel to offer a male goat as a sin offering. Ezek 43:22.

The fourth day

• On the fourth day the Philistines demanded that Delilah entice Samson to reveal the answer to the riddle. Jdg 14:15.
• On the fourth day the Israelites assembled in the Valley of Berakah. 2 Ch 20:26.
• On the fourth day the silver and gold and vessels were weighed in the house of God. Ezra 8:33.

Besides these, there are of course numerous references to the second, third and fourth day in the New Testament. Again, the “third day” references are far more numerous:

The second day

• In two days, the Passover is coming. Mt 26:2; Mk 14:1.
• Jesus stayed with the Samaritans for two days. Jn 4:40, 43.
• Jesus stayed for two extra days before going to Lazarus. Jn 11:6.
• Paul and his companions came to Puteoli. Acts 28:13.

The third day

• The crowd with Jesus had had nothing to eat for three days. Mt 15:32.
• Jesus was raised to life. Mt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mt 27:63; Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; Lk 9:22; 18:33; 24:7; 24:21, 46; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor 15:4
• Jesus promised to rebuild the temple in three days. Mt 26:61; 27:40; Mk 14:58; 15:29; Jn 2:19-20
• The tomb was kept secure until the third day had come and gone. Mt 27:64
• The crowd with Jesus had nothing to eat for three days. Mk 8:2.
• Jesus parents found him in the temple after three days. Lk 2:46;
• Jesus predicted that he would finish his course. Lk 13:32.
• Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding at Cana in Galilee. Jn 2:1.
• The crew on Paul’s ship threw the gear overboard. Ac 27:19.
• Saul was blind for three days. Acts 9:9
• Festus went to Jerusalem three days after arriving in the province. Acts 25:1.
• Paul and his companions were entertained on Malta for three days. Acts 28:7.
• Paul and his companions staed in Syracuse for three days. Acts 28:12.
• The Jews in Rome were called together three days after Paul arrived. Acts 28:17.

The fourth day

• Lazarus was in the tomb for four days. Jn 11:17, 39.
• Cornelius had been praying four days before Peter arrived. Acts 10:30.

• Hints in Scripture that God isn’t alone in the throne room of heaven. Job 1; Ps 82.
• Prophets don’t just “speak for God”; what’s distinctive about them is that they are welcomed into the divine council, the heavenly throne room. 1 Ki 22:19-20; 23:18-23.
• That’s why Jeremiah needed to be “consecrated” (i.e. “sanctified,” “made holy,” Hebrew qdsh) in order to serve as a prophet.
• Obviously, only God can make someone into a prophet. Am 7:14-15; Jer 14:14.
• A crucial and distinctive New Covenant blessing – all God’s people are now prophets. Joel 2; Acts 2.
• This fits with the sanctuary-access that we as NC believers have through the blood of Christ. Hebrews.
• This also explains one sense in which we are “greater” than John the Baptist: we have greater and closer access to a greater and more firmly-established King, the glorified and enthroned Lord Jesus Christ.
• One of our jobs as prophets is to discuss, content, dispute and argue with God, seeking even to change his mind. Ex 32; Amos 7:1-6.
• Obviously this doesn’t mean that we change God’s decree. In this ultimate sense God’s mind can never be “changed.” However, God has decreed both the end and the means, and it turns out that he has decreed precisely those “disputes” with his prophets in his Heavenly Council which result in what look (to us) like “repentance” on his part. Just ask Moses.
• Having spoken to his prophets, God then speaks through them not merely to announce his plans, but to bring them about. God’s words do God’s work. Gen 18.
• In fact, God never does anything without anouncing it beforehand through his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7.
• Besides announcing God’s plans, prophets also interpret history, call people to repent, warn of judgment, and sometimes even stop speaking as a sign and manifestation of that judgment. Acts 2; Luke 3; Jer 7; 1 Jn 5:16.

• God’s words are free
• He’s not stolen it
• Intellectual property

Part of the problem with this surprisingly tricky subject arises from the difficulty in defining precisely in biblical terms (1) the basis upon which a person acquires a title to property in general; and more fundamentally still (2) what kind of “stuff” can be owned, what can’t, and why.

Free market theorists have their views on both subjects. For example, many argue that (1) a person acquires a title to “unowned” land by “improving” it; and that (2) the only things that can be owned are things which exhibit “scarcity,” such that one person’s ownership of it deprives another person of ownership. On this latter basis, they argue, there is strictly speaking no such thing as intellectual property at all, because if I take possession of your ideas then your possession of those same ideas is not thereby impaired. Ideas, they say, can’t be “owned.”

One reason why it’s hard to bring a distincively biblical perspective to bear on the subject is that Scripture exhibits a lack of what James Barr would have called “reflective contexts” concerning these (rather abstract) questions. Put simply, the Bible simply doesn’t talk much about this stuff; rather, it seems to assume a certain point of view, which then appears only obliquely here and there.

This makes it all the more important to reflect deeply on those Biblical texts where these ideas do surface. One such text may be Ezra 10:7-8, which reads as follows:

And a proclamation was made throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the returned exiles that they should assemble at Jerusalem, and that if anyone did not come within three days, by order of the officials and the elders all his property should be forfeited, and he himself banned from the congregation of the exiles.

What’s interesting here is that the civil authority appears to have the right to confiscate certain people’s property under certain circumstances. This may bear on question (1) above, namely, the basis upon which a title to property is acquired (and retained). Perhaps it has more to do with divine fiat than “improvement,” for example.

I personally find the hermeneutical category of “spiritualisation” profoundly unhelpful. At best it’s arbitrary; at worst it imposes on the Bible’s teaching a wholly unbiblical matter/spirit dichotomy that plays havoc with everything from the sacraments to eschatology.

So you can be sure you won’t hear me talking about the “spiritualisation” of God’s promise of a land to Abraham. I personally think the land is very physical indeed. The question is not, “Is there a physical land for Abraham’s seed?” but rather, “What and where is the physical land promised to Abraham’s seed?” Is it (a) the land of Israel; or (b) something and somewhere else? I think the answer is (b), and specifically “the world” (kosmos, Rom 4:12). But this is most definitely not “spiritual” in the sense of being “non-physical”; it is this (physical) world, and is “spiritual” only in the sense of being “in the era of the Spirit,” and “an inheritance for those indwelled and united to Christ by the Spirit,” and so on.

They “could never be a Christian” because “all those miracles in the Bible contradict science”; and then they wonder, if Jesus really is God, why doesn’t he prove himself?

They complain that Christians are hypocrites; then they moan about “fundamentalists” who are “always droning on” about how “The Bible says” this and “Jesus taught” that.

They mock Christians for keeping their faith private; then they get stroppy with evangelists whose audiences block the pavements on Oxford Street.

They don’t want someone to come and tell them what to think and what to do and how to live; then they moan about the failure of Christians to “sort out this messed-up world.”

They roll their eyes because Christians “always seem so certain”, then they bleat about how no one has the answers to the world’s “big questions”.

In Proverbs 1:20-21, Lady Wisdom invites people to feast (cf. v. 34) with her – as at a wedding, with flutes and dancing (v. 32), or at the coronation of a king for whom a prophet has prepared (vv. 26-29). Here, “Jesus fulfils Wisdom’s role in Proverbs by inviting sinners and the outcasts of society to table fellowship, where he teaches them divine wisdom” (Just, Luke, p. 32). The character of this invitation and the banquet that follows banquet is then illustrated in the very next passage, where a Pharisee invites Jesus to dinner, and a sinful woman is there too.

In favour of this view is the fact that Jesus’ preaching of “freedom for the captives” (4:18) sits uncomfortably with John’s experience of imprisonment (3:20). Perhaps, then, John might have thought that Jesus himself was preparing for Another who would finally set the captives (including himself) free.

On balance, though, I’m not persuaded that “doubt” is the right word to describe John’s disposition. This would imply a pretty low view of John’s understanding of the OT, which hardly fits with his vocation as a prophet. A low view of John’s understanding of the OT is also hard to square with Jn 1:29, “The lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”, and with Jesus’ assessment in Luke 7:28 – there “no one born of woman … is greater than he”. And can John really have expected that he, as a prophet, would have any other kind of life than one of suffering? Hasn’t he heard of Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel, Moses, Abraham, etc? C’mon, John was no fool; he knew what he was getting into.

To my mind, it makes much better sense to understand John’s question as driven not by doubt, but rather by the understandable desire for confirmation, perhaps especially in view of the fact that John may feel that as a prisoner his preaching ministry is now over, and may be anxious about not having fulfiled his task if Jesus is not the Messiah. Thus John isn’t doubting; rather, he’s seeking assurance (and the peace of mind that goes with it) of what he’s pretty much sure is true. Anyone who has experienced “doubt” will understand (and, I hope, welcome) the distinction.

This alternative view fits with the salvation-historic character of the relationship between John and Jesus: John is the prophet who prepares the way for the King (for God never does anything without first telling his prophets, Amos 3:7). John wants to know if he’s completed his vocation as the transition-prophet from the era of prophecy to the era of the kingdom. This picture fits with the contrasts drawn later in Lk 7 between John’s (prophetic) asceticism and Jesus’ (kingly) feasting (vv. 33-34), and between John’s (prophetic) weeping and Jesus’ (kingly) dancing (v. 32).

Yes, that’s right, we have another baptism service (of an adult this time) this coming Lord’s Day. Here’s how that part of the service will be introduced:

The Bible teaches that all who follow Christ must repent of their sins, trust in him and be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself commanded, ‘Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’ (Matthew 28:18–20). The apostle Peter said, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’ (Acts 2:38).

God promises great blessings to everyone who follows Jesus. Our sins are forgiven, our consciences are cleansed and we are counted righteous in God’s sight. We die to sin and are raised to new life, and we are seated with Christ in the heavenly places where we share in his rule over all creation. We are adopted into God’s family, the church, and by faith we feed on Christ’s precious body and blood. We are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, by whom we are united to Christ and equipped to live in a way that pleases him as we look forward to the glorious inheritance we shall enjoy with him when he returns.

In baptism God welcomes us formally into his people, among whom we enjoy all these blessings. Baptism is a sign and seal of God’s covenant—his solemn commitment to save his people. Accordingly, the Bible associates baptism with such covenant blessings as being united with Christ in his death and resurrection, receiving the forgiveness of sins and the life-giving Holy Spirit, and moving from death to life (e.g. Acts 2:38; Romans 6:1–6; Colossians 2:12). Baptism says that as a member of God’s family X belongs to Jesus and is blessed by him.

These blessings are not received without faith. So today we pray that X’s faith would become stronger and her repentance deeper as she grows towards maturity in Christ, and that God would equip her day by day to remain faithful as a servant of Christ.

]]> http://northlondonchurch.org/2012/03/23/another-one-bites-the-dust/feed/ 0 http://northlondonchurch.org/2012/03/20/34-repentance/ http://northlondonchurch.org/2012/03/20/34-repentance/#comments Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:29:56 +0000 Steve Jeffery http://northlondonchurch.org/?p=5390

Introduction

We’re continuing our study of what is sometimes called “the application of redemption” in session 34 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course. We began with union with Christ by faith, the foundation of every blessing we receive from God; we turn now to repentance, and to Calvin’s Institutes, III.iii-iv.

We’ll focus the bulk of our attention on III.iii, Calvin’s positive statement on the subject. Don’t be daunted by the length of the following chapter (III.iv). It’s well worth reading, for here Calvin addresses some medieval Catholic misunderstandings of repentance, but we won’t have time to discuss it in detail during the tutorial.

If you’re short of time, omit the questions marked with a *.

Questions for reflection

i. “If God will forgive me, what motivation remains for godliness?” How would you respond?

ii. What is “repentance”?

iii. What is the sin that “will not be forgiven” (Matthew 12:31-32; cf. Mark 3:28-30; Luke 12:10)?

iv. What sort of people is Hebrews 6:4-6 taking about?

v. When, if at all, would you ever feel it appropriate to confess specific sins to another person?

Study questions

1. Calvin believes that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith, and yet he insists that “actual holiness of life … is not separated from free imputation of righteousness” (III.iii.1). What does he mean by this?

For reflection: What practical pastoral implications follow from what Calvin says here?

In III.iii.2-4, Calvin addresses some wrong and incomplete understandings of repentance, before defining repentance in III.iii.5 and expanding on this definition in III.iii.6-9.

2. How does Calvin define repentance in III.iii.5?

3. Calvin expands on his definition of repentance by making three points in III.iii.6-9. What are these three points?

• III.iii.6
• III.iii.7
• III.iii.8-9

Let’s look in a little more detail at some aspects of this expanded definition of repentance.

4. Do you agree with Calvin’s statement that “before the mind of the sinner inclines to repentance, it must be aroused by thinking upon divine judgment” (III.iii.7)? Why or why not?

5. According to Calvin, “Both [mortification and vivification] happen to us by participation in Christ” (III.iii.9). What does Calvin mean by this? Do you find this surprising?

For reflection: “We are sanctified in the same way that we are justified – by faith alone.” Discuss.

6. “I interpret repentance as regeneration, whose sole end is to restore in us the image of God” (III.iii.9). What does Calvin mean by this? Is this use of the terms “repentance” and “regeneration” familiar to you?

In III.iii.10-15, Calvin explores how we make progress in repentance (sometimes called “sanctification,” as in the text in parentheses just before III.iii.10) throughout the Christian life.

7. “There remains in a regenerate man a smouldering cinder of evil, from which desires continually leap forth to allure and spur him to commit sin” (III.iii.10). What does Calvin mean by this?

8. What “difference of opinion” (III.iii.10) exists between Calvin and Augustine on this matter? Who is correct?

10. “Sin ceases only to reign; it does not cease to dwell in them” (III.iii.11). What does this mean?

*11. “Certain Anabaptists of our day conjure up some sort of frenzied excess instead of spiritual regeneration” (III.iii.14). After Calvin has calmed down a little, how does he explain the error of those he criticises here?

*For reflection: Have you encountered similar views anywhere in the contemporary Christian world?

*12. In III.iii.16, Calvin mentions “certain outward exercises” including “squalor, groaning, and tears.” What place should such exercises have in the Christian life (III.iii.16)? Does Calvin foresee any potential problems here (III.iii.16-17)?

13. How does Augustine define “the unpardonable sin” (III.iii.22)? What does Calvin think of Augustine’s view (III.iii.22)? What alternative definition does Calvin offer (III.iii.22)?

14. According to Calvin, what sort of people is Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-29 taking about (III.iii.23)?

*15. What apparent problem is presented by the example of Ahab in 1 Kings 21:27-29 (III.iii.25)? How does Calvin interpret this passage (III.iii.25)? How, and to whom, should this lesson “be applied as an example” (III.iii.25)?

Calvin now turns in III.iv to some misunderstandings of repentance found among some of his medieval Catholic contemporaries.

*16. What definitions of repentance were offered by “the Scholastic Sophists” (III.iv.1)? What problems does Calvin find with them?

*17. What pastoral problems arise from the doctrine of repentance Calvin criticises here (III.iv.2)?

18. What is the decisive difference between Calvin’s doctrine of repentance and the one he opposes here (III.iv.3)?

*19. What objections does Calvin raise against the Scholastic doctrine of auricular confession (III.iv.4-8)?

*20. What kind of confession does Scripture require (III.iv.9)?

*21. Under what circumstances should we confess our sins to another person (III.iv.10-13)?

For reflection: Does any of this surprise you? Would you be comfortable with confessing your sins in this way?

Calvin continues this chapter with a more detailed discussion of the medieval Catholic doctrine of confession and related themes. These are worth reading, though we probably won’t have time to discuss them in detail during the tutorial.

Introduction

In session 19 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we conclude our three-part study of the doctrine of the incarnation. We began by thinking about the purpose of the incarnation with the help of Athanasius, On the Incarnation. We then considered the historical development of the doctrine of the incarnation from the apostles to the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 by reading a summary of the relevant portions of Does God Change? by Tom Weinandy. In this final session, we return to the familiar territory of Calvin, Institutes, II.xii-xiv and Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 321-330.

Berkhof provides a helpful overview of the subject, much of which will be familiar after last week’s reading and tutorial. Calvin covers the basic theological groundwork from within a different historical context. They both address misunderstandings of the incarnation, and their responses to these will help us to sharpen further our understanding of the Bible’s teaching on this subject.

Here’s an outline of what we’re looking at this week.

• Introductory questions
• Berkhof
  • Overview
  • Christological errors
    • Reformed and Lutheran understandings of the communicato idiomatum
    • Kenotic Christology
    • Gradual incarnation
• Calvin
  • II.xii The necessity of the incarnation
  • II.xiii The true humanity of Christ
  • II.xiv The two natures of Christ in one person

Questions for reflection

i. Do you recognise these lines? What, if anything, is wrong with them?

He left his Father’s throne above,
So free, so infinite his grace;
Emptied himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race.

ii. What do you think about these lines?

Amazing love! how can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me? …
‘Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies!
Who can explore His strange design?

iii. What’s wrong with this statement: “Jesus’ human nature died on the cross, but not his divine nature”?

Study questions on Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 321-330

1. What observations does Berkhof make about the Christological declarations of the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 (p. 320)?

2. What is meant by the terms “nature” and person” in Christological discussion (p. 321)?

3. How many persons, and how many natures, are there in Christ (p. 322)? What biblical evidence does Berkhof cite to support this (fairly standard!) view (pp. 322-323)?

For reflection: Do these particular biblical texts support Berkhof’s point?

We now turn to the first significant Christological error discussed by Berkhof: the Lutheran (mis)understanding of the communication of the attributes (communicato idiomatum). In order to understand what (some of) the Lutherans got wrong, we must first consider what the Reformed got right.

4. What is meant by the term communicato idiomatum in Reformed theology (p. 324)? What must we “be careful not to understand the term to mean” (p. 324)? How does Lutheran theology get this wrong (p. 325-326)?

For reflection: Consider the consequences of this Lutheran mistake listed by Berkhof on pp. 326-327. Which do you think are most obviously fatal to the Lutheran view?

We now turn to the second significant Christological error discussed by Berkhof: the so-called “Kenotic theory” of the incarnation. (The important names here include P. T. Forsyth and Charles Gore.) Mercifully, this notion is not as popular among theologians as it once was, but the underlying ideas are still remarkably common, perhaps because they seem to make intuitive sense, and because they appear at first glance to resolve some of the supposed difficulties of the incarnation.

5. What key element lies at the heart of the Kenotic theory of the incarnation (p. 327)?

6. How might an advocate of Kenotic Christology defend his view from the following texts?

• 2 Corinthians 8:9
• Philippians 2:5-8
• John 17:5

7. What objections does Berkhof raise against Kenotic Christology (p. 328-329)?

Berkhof concludes the chapter with a brief discussion of Dorner’s “Theory of Gradual Incarnation,” which, though of some historical interest, is not now particularly prominent and will probably not occupy our attention during the tutorial.

Study questions on Calvin, Institutes, II.xii-xiv (1:464-493)

Questions on II.xii.

8. Why, according to Calvin, did the mediator need to be true God and true man (II.xii.1-3)?

9. “Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator” (II.xii.1). Do you agree? Can you reconcile what Calvin says here with his comments at the start of II.xii.4 (see also II.xii.5)?

10. What does Calvin think of question 2, above? Why (II.xii.5)?

Questions on II.xiii.

11. What evidence does Calvin adduce to prove Christ’s true humanity (II.xiii.1)?

12. What objection does Calvin address in II.xiii.4? How does he respond?

Questions on II.xiv.

13. What misunderstanding of Christ’s human and divine natures does Calvin address in II.xiv.1? How does he correct this erroneous view? What analogy does he offer?

14. What does Calvin mean by “the communicating of properties” (II.xiv.1)? How do the scriptural texts cited in II.xiv.2 fit with this doctrine? How does Calvin’s view differ from the Lutheran doctrine (cf. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 324ff.)?

15. What, in Calvin’s view, is demonstrated by the texts cited in II.xiv.3? Do you agree?

16. What were the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches (II.xiv.4)? How does Calvin reply?

We’ve now reached the end of the series, and a number of them were recorded and are available online. You can take your pick here.

The eighth in a series of interactive sessions in Forum on the subject of Authority and Responsibility.

Some clarifications

• Two-office view: (1) Elder; (2) Deacon.
• Three-office view: (1) Teaching Elder (= Minister/Pastor); (2) Ruling Elder; (3) Deacon.
• Four-office view: (1) Teaching Elder (= Minister/Pastor); (2) Ruling Elder; (3) Deacon; (4) Doctor. (So Westminster Assembly’s Form)
• Different versions of the two-office view
  • Some Baptists: (1) Pastor; (2) Deacon.
  • Brethren: (1) Elder; (2) Deacon.
  • Support claimed from the mention of only two offices in 1 Tim 3:1-13 and Tit 1:5-9.

Some distinctions

• Clearly, the terminology is potentially confused and confusing. Hence the confusion everywhere, perhaps. In one sense, function matters more than formal titles. Yet in the interests of clarity it’d be good to cut through some of the lingustic undergrowth.
• The distinction between “Ruling Elder” and “Teaching Elder / Minister / Pastor” favours the three (or four) office view:
  • 1 Tim 5:17 “The Elders … especially those who labour in preaching and teaching” indicates a distinction between two “categories” of elder.
  • While 1 Tim 3:1-13 and Tit 1:5-9 include ability to teach as a requirement for all elders (Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders), other portions of the Pastorals mention other teaching duties that go beyond this, assigned to Timothy in keeping with his vocation as one particularly charged with teaching the church (Teaching Elder / Pastor / Minister).
  • 1 Cor 9:13-14 indicates the parallel between “those who serve at the altar” and “those who preach the gospel,” and in the OT the priests were teachers (Dt 10:8; Mal 2:7). Thus, NT Teaching Elder / Minister / Pastor = OT Priest; NT Ruling Elder = OT Judge / Elder.
  • Question: is the distinction between the two functions/categories of Elder best expressed by speaking of two separate offices or merely two distinct functions of those serving in the one office?
• “Minister” means “servant.” Inverted pyramid with the Teaching Elders at the bottom.

A few complications

• What about a church that lacks deacons simply for practical reasons (perhaps they’re a young-ish congregation, and have therefore just never got round to appointing them)?
• What about an Elder who has previously occupied the office of Minister / Pastor (Teaching Elder), and who is gifted as a precher and teacher, but who has since moved into the secular workplace and therefore does little actual teaching in the congregation?
• Anglicans and Episcopalians also have three offices: Bishop, Priest (Presbyter) and Deacon. Biblical support?
• Training for Elders: Are Deacons trainee Elders? Or should we (also?) have a separate, static office of Deacon?
• What’s with the fourth office (Teacher / Doctor). Is the distinction between Doctor and Minister too wooden? Does it really necessitate a separate ordination, distinct from Ruling Elder and Teaching Elder? What OT background?

Further reading

All the usual Reformed sources

Ordained Servant, 12:1 (2003)

Douglas Wilson, “The Four-Office View”

Definitions

What is the “soul” anyway? Mind, consciousness; that immaterial aspect of man which is normally connected and associated with the body, but which becomes dissociated at death? Few reflective contexts in Bible. In the absence of sustained biblical reflection, clarify:

1. Continued existence of the soul after death;

2. Both saved and lost conscious after death;

3. Saved conscious of being with Lord; lost conscious of suffering;

4. Both saved and lost awaiting resurrection and judgment.

2 Corinthians 5:8  ⁸ Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Philippians 1:23-24  ²³ I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.  ²⁴ But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.

Revelation 6:9-10   ⁹ When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.  ¹⁰ They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

Lk 16:19-31 Rich man and Lazarus

2 Peter 2:9   ⁹ then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,

(Also Lk 23:46; Heb 12:23)

Terminology

The terminology of Everlasting Conscious Punishment (ECP) is preferable to Eternal CP (avoiding potential confusion with divine eternity/eternality, and also with the qualitative sense of “eternal” favoured by some advocates of CI) and also to EC Torment (since punishment more accurately conveys both the nature and the purpose of the experience).

ECP: The damned remain conscious of punishment, and therefore of pain, everlastingly.

Conditional Immortality (CI): After suffering for a time, the damned eventually cease to exist. Annihilationism.

Warfield, “Annihilationism,” in Studies in Theology

Warfield distinguishes 3 views within the general category of annihilationism:

(1) Pure mortalism: all souls, being mortal, cease to exist at death;

2) Conditional immortality: souls are naturally mortal, and only those sustained by God persist in death;

(3) Annihilationism proper: souls are naturally immortal, but God actually destroys the souls of the wicked.

This highlights the need to distinguish (a) aseity, the kind of immortality that God alone possesses, “life in himself” (John 5:26) from (b) natural immortality (or perhaps alienable immortality?), which contrasts with both aseity and conditional immortality, and affirms that souls are a kind of entity to which God gives immortality.

Also, note (1) substantial variety among broader “annihilationism”; and (2) Chris Date’s view is rare. Perhaps something like it was suggested/espoused by James Martineau and Horace Bushnell, whereby the lost soul becomes a “shrunken,” “rotten” organ incapable of any feeling at all and not worthy to be denoted “personal.”

CD’s view

Like many annihilationists, he can’t evade the clear Biblical teaching about (1) existence of the soul after death; (2) bodily resurrection of saved and lost; (3) conscious punishment of resurrected lost. The question is whether this punishment is everlastingly conscious.

Tone and purpose

This stuff is horrific. No one enjoys talking about it. Jesus wept when he contemplated the fate of Jerusalem (Lk 19:41)

On the other hand, Jesus talked about it rather a lot, and the Bible talks a great deal about judgment in general. It’s supposed to be frightening. To frighten the lost is an act of mercy. Cf. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was once accused, “You’re trying to frighten people.” He replied, “Yes, I most certainly am.” Also Jonathan Edwards. No accident that the Lord used him to lead a revival – he was unafraid of preaching the truth in the appropriate way. International student: “It was only during a sermon on hell that I realised that what I’d heard about Jesus was serious.”

Arguments in favour of Conditional Immortality

1. The meaning of aionios and olam (Fudge ch. 3)

• Qualitative (having the quality of another age) or quantitative (endless in duration)?
  • NT : aionios = “having the character of the Kingdom of God,” “Messianic,” synoptics cf. John.
  • “Everlasting” (aionios, olam) things that come to an end. Passover Ex 12:24; Aaronic priesthood Ex 29:9; etc.
  • Thus Mt 25:46 (the crucial verse mentioning “eternal punishment” and “eternal life” together) could mean that both the life and the punishment are aionios in character, and therefore different in duration.
• If quantitative, is it the thing itself or its effects?
  • 6x in NT aionios qualifies “nouns signifying acts or processes.” Eternal salvation (Heb 5:9); redemption (Heb 9:12); judgment (Heb 6:2); sin (Mk 3:29); destruction (2 Thess 1:9); punishment (Mt 25:46). In the first five, the effects of the process denoted, not the process itself, are everlasting in duration. So also, then, with “eternal punishment” (Mt 25:46).
  • We measure capital punishment by its (eternal) effects, not by the (short) time required for its execution.

Response

Of course aionios can mean different things in different contexts, but this settles nothing.

The argument from Mt 25:46 seems artificial; danger of reading in rather than reading out.

Whether aionios refers to the effects of the process or the process itself depends also on the noun in question.

Important flaw in the entire CI case: Much of the later exegesis works simply by reading into other texts a meaning of aionios derived here – qualitative, not quantitative, or quantitative in effect rather than duration – while simultaneously ignoring other biblical and theological considerations that warrant a different reading. Fudge simply ignores these theological considerations entirely.

It’s no good simply to dismiss such “theological” considerations as “unbiblical logic”; rather, we must recognise that such considerations are a necessary way of bringing to bear other aspects of the bible’s teaching such as the justice of God, the holiness of God, the purpose of glory, and so on.

The crucial point is that the Hebrew and Greek words alone can’t tell you whether the punishment goes on for ever. Other considerations – including theological considerations – must be borne in mind.

2. Can a man, or a soul, die? (Fudge chs 4-5)

• Contra alleged post-apostolic innovation, the soul is not immortal.
• The early church accepted the platonic view that the soul is a component in man separable from his body and unhurt by physical death.
• God could reduce the soul to non-existence.
• Fudge, Appendix B, attempts to refute Calvin’s arguments on the immortality of the soul (Psychopannychia)

Response

The question does not concern the rightness of patristic or Reformed Christian anthropology. Of course they made mistakes (e.g. Calvin’s denigration of the body).

But the question does not concern the inherent immortality or otherwise of the human soul. Nothing except God has this kind of immortality anyway. The question concerns simply whether God, who could preserve man everlastingly and who could destroy him utterly, in fact chooses to do so.

Did Calvin really say what Fudge says he did?

3. Sheol isn’t the (OT) place of punishment of the wicked (Fudge chs 6-7)

• OT texts where both righteous and wicked go to sheol. Righteous expect to be rescued (e.g. David, Ps 49:15).
• Even for the wicked, sheol isn’t the final destination (Fudge ch. 6), but rather destruction (Fudge ch. 7), reflected in such images as fire (leaving only smoke and ashes), darkness, chaff being blown away, fire that cannot be quenched (and therefore continues to destroy, leaving nothing).
• The wicked at the end of Ps 69 cannot be found – no one dwells in their tents (v. 25), they are blotted out from the book of life (v. 28).
• Ps 145 the wicked destroyed; all flesh will praise his name (therefore all who don’t do so cannot exist anywhere).
• The worms that don’t die and fire that is not quenched speak not of everlasting pain, but everlasting shame.

Response

The imagery doesn’t come close to establishing what Fudge seems to think it does.

E.g. If the wicked can’t be found in their tents, that doesn’t imply their metaphysical obliteration. “Destroyed” doesn’t imply this either – in the bible “destruction” can come by fire or flood, for example.

4. Jesus’ death was not principally about punishment of sin, but destruction of sin (Fudge pp. 228ff., following Dunn)

• Jesus took into himself the destructive consequences of sin
• Jesus died, experiencing the thing which according to Scripture is sin’s penalty

Response

Huh? Jesus’ death only “secondarily” about punishment? Even if this were true (and Fudge hasn’t even attempted to argue this), Jesus’ death is still about punishment for sin – even if only secondarily!

Jesus didn’t cease to exist at the cross. Neither did sin – either in his people or the world.

Fallacy of reification: sin isn’t an “organism” (Dunn).

Jesus suffered not just any old death – picture Gethsemane (following Stott, Cross of Christ).

5. The mathematics of “infinite” punishment is a medieval invention (Fudge ch. 12)

• Also, if death is seen as “destruction without limitation,” it is in fact “infinite” in a qualitative sense, so (some versions of) annihilation would satisfy the “infinite punishment” criterion anyway.

Response

“Medieval” claim not demonstrated; simply asserted.

Biblical grounds for recognising degrees of punishment.

No need for thought of “the infinite” anyway; simply for the thought of never having paid the debt.

Miscellaneous arguments

1. Fire purifies, removing dross from gold.

• Thus in the end even hell will be purified from the damned who are sent there.
• Cf. Origen, who (according to Fudge, ch. 16) speculated that the fire of hell would purify the damned and lead eventually to the salvation of all.

Response

• Confusion between two distinct biblical ways in which fire acts in the Bible. It purifies, yes, if there is gold present; yet at the same time it burns and consumes if there is only straw (e.g. 1 Cor 3:12).

2. The pain observed in hell would mar the joy of the wicked

• Understandable at level of emotion

Response

Not according to the Bible.

Sinners in hell, viewed by the saved from God’s perspective. How do you feel about the ECP of the Devil?

Considerations in favour of ECP

1. Texts
   1. Mt 25:46 , eternal life, eternal punishment.
   2. Mk 9:47-48, the “worm does not die”. Whatever happens to the body or the soul, the worm remains.
2. Against pure mortalism (cf. Warfield), both the righteous are the unrighteous are resurrected (John 5:28-29, an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment), and indeed the (souls of the) unrighteous dead are kept in existence precisely for the purpose of judgment (2 Peter 2:9, the Lord knows how to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment)
3. If death / sheol are about being “cut off from God,” it’s necessary to distinguish different kinds of cut-off-ness.
   1. Severing loving relationship (with persistence of relationships of hostility, confrontation, punishment)?
   2. Metaphysical breach?
   3. Only the latter would entail annihilation. Many texts support only the former
4. The whole of the topic must be placed within a framework of:
   1. Horror (so emotional response is right), and yet resolve to view things biblically and not be driven by emotions
   2. A desire that our hearts and minds be shaped (within the framework of these right emotional responses) such that we have a greater appreciation of the holiness and justice of God, his mercy to us who are saved, the dreadful fate of the damned, the extent of Christ’s love in redeeming us from such a fate, and an increased commitment to share the love of Christ with those who don’t know him
5. The infinite sinfulness of sin
   1. Infinite sin requires infinite punishment
   2. For man, that take infinite time
   3. For Christ, it took finite time, for the union of the divine and human natures in his person lends an infinite dignity to his person and therefore an infinite quality to his suffering even in a finite time
6. Purpose of hell: Divine justice displayed to the objects of God’s mercy
   1. If you want God to judge the unrepentant justly for any sin, then an everlasting punishment is necessary
   2. Where would God’s attribute of justice be displayed if the damned ceased to exist?
7. Even on a preterist reading (of any text), God’s interim judgments are always a model of his final judgments. Cf. Noah and Sodom in 2 Pet 2.
8. It’s possible to have a view that says the damned become progressively less human, in the sense of losing progressively more and more of the qualities that make man good, while retaining ontological being.
9. The damned will continue to sin, and this sin warrants further punishment
10. The damned are in the presence of God
11. Metaphysical sustenance necessary for existence
12. The fire of hell is the presence of God. Fudge, p. 169, wrongly thinks it’s either/or; ironically, the passages he quotes establish the identity he denies!

11.  The significance of the biblical imagery

1. Fire. Transformation (refining or burning), pain, shame (burned bones). Never obliteration. There’s smoke and ash.
2. Water (Noah, Assyria in Isa 8). Washing or destruction, yet destruction still leaves a ruin, not nothing at all.
3. Worm. Decomposition, hence shame.
4. Cut off, excluded.
5. Curse.

12.  Clarify misunderstandings of hell.

1. Not “separated from God”. Attractive compared to the alternative, bcs seems to make God less than active in inflicting the punishment. But
   1. i.      2 Th 1:9 apo means that the destruction comes from God
   2. ii.      The fire of hell is itself the presence of God (so Jonathan Edwards; biblical imagery)
   3. The same thing that makes hell hellish also makes glory glorious – the presence of God.

13.  Texts that teach the existence of the soul after death (Peterson, p. 174): 2 Cor 5:8; Lk 23:44; Phil 1:23; Rev 6:9; Heb 12:23; Lk 16:19-31

14.  Simply no texts in the Bible that actually teach positively that there exists a “transition” between conscious punishment and some other form of (non)existence. In this sense, it’s entirely speculative.

15.  Christology

1. Christ was not annihilated on the cross. He suffered separation in the sense of abandonment (quoting Ps 22:1), but not in the sense of metaphysical separation. No longer experiencing his Father’s love, but certainly experiencing his Father’s presence as a wrathful Judge from whose hand he drank the cup of wrath.
2. Fudge simply does not establish that Jesus was annihilated at death. Obviously he wasn’t, in fact; his body was taken down from the cross and placed in the tomb!
3. Jesus was annihilated in what sense? According to his divinity? Hardly. According to his humanity? Well then, what exactly was the body that was laid in the tomb??!

Resources

Edward W. Fudge, The Fire that Consumes

Edward W. Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell

Warfield, “Annihilationism,” in Studies in Theology

This text is something of a puzzle, because there is no text in the OT which says, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” So what is Matthew talking about?

Well, who knows. But for now, here are some possibilities arising from a recent conversation with some friends:

• Nazirite? All three permanent Nazirites (holy priestly warriors?) in the Bible (John and Baptist, Samson and Samuel) were born of barren women (Elizabeth, Manoah’s wife, Hannah). Now here’s Jesus, the greatest holy warrior of them all, born of a woman who, humanly speaking, ought to be more barren than any of these – the virgin Mary. Intriguingly, Jesus himself took what looks rather like a (temporary) Nazirite vow in Mt 26:29.
• The Hebrew word for “branch” is nezer. Thus Matthew’s reference to “Nazarene” is in fact a pun on “the Davidic branch” (compare for example Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5).
• In Mt 2:23, the word “Nazarene” is spelled strangely, with a long “o” instead of the second “a” – NazOrene. This would have imitated the uncouth-sounding Galillean Aramaic spoken by uneducated peasants from the northern regions of the land, near Nazareth. Thus Matthew is highlighting Jesus’ humble origins – he identifies with the poor of the land, who were looked down upon by the wealthy urbanites in the south.
• “The prophets” = “The Twelve” (minor Prophets)? Especially, perhaps, in view of the references to a “branch” in Zech 3:8; 6:12. (Note, however, that the term here is tsamach; different from nezer, Isa 11:1.)

Introduction

In session 33 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’re continuing our study of faith and union with Christ. Having begun last week with the first two sections of Calvin’s Institutes, book III, we’ll take a brief detour this week into one of the best-known works of the great eighteenth-century theologian Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections.

Edwards is seeking to address the nature of genuine saving faith, and in particular to identify “the distinguishing qualifications of those that are in favor with God” (introduction). The work falls into three parts, as follows:

Part I       The nature of the affections and their importance in religion
Part II      Signs that do not identify genuine affections
Part III     The character of genuine affections

We’ll be focussing our attention on the introduction and on part I, where Edwards first explains what he means by the key term “affections,” then demonstrates by a series of ten arguments that the affections are important in “true religion,” before finally drawing some practical conclusions.

Edwards’s work has relevance for our understanding of the nature of faith, as well as for a range of practical issues such as assurance, prayer and worship. It is available free online as a pdf. Hard copies will be provided for students enrolled formally on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course. Page numbers in the questions below refer to this pdf version.

If you’re short of time, omit some of the ten arguments covered in question 7.

Questions for reflection

i. Should Christian worship be emotional? Why or why not?

ii. Is it appropriate for a preacher to seek to stir the emotions of his hearers? If so, how should he seek to do this?

iii. What would you say a friend who doubted his salvation because he didn’t share the emotional experiences of others at church?

Study questions

1. What question is Edwards setting out to resolve in this treatise (p. 2)? How important does he think it is?

2. Commenting on 1 Peter 1:8, Edwards remarks that “trials are of threefold benefit to true religion” (p. 7). What are these three benefits of trials (p. 2)?

3. Edwards observes “two kinds of operation, or exercise of true religion” (p. 8) in the Christians to whom the apostle Peter wrote. What are these (p. 8)?

4. What are “the two things which the apostle takes notice of … concerning this joy” (p. 8)? How does he expand on the second of these two things (p. 8)?

5. What is “the proposition or doctrine” (p. 8) which Edwards sets forth on the basis of what he has discussed so far (p. 9)?

For reflection: As you look back over the last four questions, can you follow the line of argument that Edwards has been seeking to follow?

6. What, according to Edwards, are “the affections of the mind” (pp. 9-10)?

For reflection: How might you explain in contemporary language what Edwards means by “the affections”?

Having stated his thesis (that “true religion, in great part, consists in holy affections”), and explained what “the affections” are, Edwards now gives ten numbered arguments to support his thesis (pp. 11-26).

7. For each of these arguments, please do the following:

• Outline the argument briefly in your own words;
• Identify any significant biblical texts or theological reasoning underlying the argument;
• Evaluate the argument.

For reflection: Are you persuaded?

Having established his thesis (at least to his own satisfaction), Edwards now proceeds to three (numbered) implications of his conclusions (pp. 27-31).

8. What is the first inference drawn by Edwards (p. 27)?

For reflection: Have you encountered personally the position Edwards criticises here? If so, where?

9. What might happen, according to Edwards, if we minimise the significance of religious affections (p. 28)?

10. What is the second inference drawn by Edwards (p. 29)?

For reflection: What would Edwards say about the various preachers and books you have been influenced by?

11. What is the third inference drawn by Edwards (p. 29)?

For reflection: What practical changes do you think Edwards would encourage you to make to your own life? Would you be likely to do what he says?

Introduction

We’re continuing with the doctrine of the incarnation in session 18 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course. This week we’ll be looking at the historical development of the doctrine of the incarnation from the apostles to the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. Tom Weinandy’s outstanding book Does God Change? (Still River: Massachusetts, 1985) deals with this question superbly, but previous experience suggests that it is too long and complex for our purposes. I have therefore attempted to condense the relevant parts of Weinandy’s book into a short article, entitled “Christology for Amateurs,” designed to make Weinandy’s longer work a little more manageable in the time available to us. The study questions are interspersed throughout the text itself, and during the tutorial we will go through these in the normal way, attempting to clarify the historical development of this important doctrine.

You will notice quickly that the development of the doctrine of the incarnation is closely related to the development of Trinitarian theology. This is unsurprising, of course, since the question of how God the Son could become man obviously entails a consideration of the person of the Son himself, and therefore his relationship with the Father and the Spirit in the Godhead. At times, therefore, we will find ourselves calling to mind some of the material we covered in earlier sessions on the doctrine of the Trinity.

The article becomes somewhat more complex towards the end, reflecting the fact that the development of the doctrine itself became more technical towards the beginning of the fifth century. Don’t worry if you find some sections hard to follow; just get as far as you can, and we’ll cover any remaining questions in the tutorial.

The article is available online here. Hard copies will be provided for students formally enrolled on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

Words fail me.

The sixth in a series of interactive sessions in Forum on the subject of Authority and Responsibility.

This report has generated a range of reactions so far, and these will no doubt rumble on for some time.

My initial response is an unsurprised shrug. Unsurprised – because this just confirms what we’ve all known for some time. And a shrug, because Jesus can stand up for himself perfectly well, and as history has shown time and time again the church will triumph through adversity.

At the same time, I have sympathy with the howls of outrage, since it seems to me perfectly reasonable that public figures should be held to account for failing to adhere to their own (admittedly incoherent) values of “tolerance” and “equality”. The BBC claims to be “fair” and “impartial,” and yet has now blown its cover in a rather embarrassing way. Even people who operate with bent rulers should be hauled up if they fail to follow their own crooked lines.

Of course, it’s possible that Mr Thompson has been misunderstood. If this is the case, then I’m sure he will lose no time in making his real views known, by clarifying either that Muslims can expect to be demeaned, insulted and mocked as Christians now routinely are, or by assuring us that from now on Christians (including evangelical, Reformed, Bible-thumping Christians) will be accorded the same respect as everyone else. I’m sure that if it turns out that the Christian Institute has misrepresented him, they will be quick to apologise.

Here’s a quick heads-up about a little book that my friend Andrew Sach and I have written entitled The Cross. It’s published by the wonderful folks at 10ofthose.com, and will be available soon. More information will follow soon; in the meantime, here’s an extract from the blurb:

The cross stands at the heart of the Christian faith. There Christ bore the penalty for our sins. He defeated Satan, he set the ultimate example of how to love others, and he brings us with him through death to newness of life. Like the pieces of a jigsaw, these aspects of Christ’s work fit together to form a single glorious picture.

In this punchy little book, Sach and Jeffery explore each element in turn, uncovering biblical themes that are sometimes neglected. We are brought face to face with the glory of the cross.

Chris remarked after the recording had finished that despite the disagreement he found the discussion helpful and (as much as the subject-matter allowed) enjoyable, and that indeed it seemed to him a good “example of how passionate yet loving disagreement can take place” between believers.

I’ve been musing a little about why this debate – which had potential to generate far more heat than light – nonetheless turned out to be so productive. Here are some of the more obvious factors that spring to mind:

To begin with, Chris and I talked at length privately before we went on air. This enabled us to get to know each other personally, which is always a smart idea, since it’s far more productive to have a conversation with a friend about your faith than to have a dispute about ideas with a guy you don’t know.

We also wanted to understand as clearly as possible each other’s views. It’s not possible to have a constructive conversation about a point of theological disagreement without first clarifying what exactly the debate is about. As it turned out, Chris and I agreed on more than we might initially have realised – good job we worked this out before going into the studio.

In other contexts I have previously encountered at least four different versions of “annihilationism,” and Chris’s version of this doctrine is different from all of them. Anyone who has been anathematized for views he doesn’t actually hold will appreciate the importance of listening to what the other guy is actually saying.

During both this preliminary conversation and the debate itself, both of us had our Bibles open, and Chris in particular took considerable time explaining on the basis of his reading of Scripture why his views about hell have changed. To his great credit, Justin Brierley of Premier Radio resisted the temptation to cut short this discussion for the sake of snappy soundbites, realising instead that a mature and godly discussion of an issue such as this requires sustained engagement with the text of Scripture. I can’t think of any other major British broadcaster that would have allowed Chris the time he took explaining his reading of Mark 9, or given me to time required to talk about Revelation 14 and 20.

This openness to Scripture naturally generated an openness to have our minds changed. As it happens, I’ve not changed my mind about the subject we were discussing, and as far as I know neither has Chris. But the demeanour of openness-to-correction is indispensable, and cannot be achieved with a closed Bible. All of us want to be corrected on matters where we’re wrong, don’t we?

Finally, we did the other obvious thing – Chris and I prayed together during our preliminary conversation (albeit from a distance of several thousand miles) before coming on air. Since every word we speak is uttered in the presennce of God, it seemed wise to involve Him directly in the conversation.

The debate will be broadcast on Saturday afternoon, or you can listen to the podcast at Premier Christian Radio

David’s 6th point, however, raises a small question. David argues that panta ta ethne in Matthew 28:19 refers to people from all people-groups, not people from all nation-states. Actually, strictly speaking it probably refers to neither.

Let’s take a closer look. The phrase panta ta ethne is in the accusative, with no preposition. Jesus says simply “disciple all the nations” – with “the nations” as the object of the verb “disciple”. If Jesus had wanted to refer to people from a particular group (as in, “disciple people from every ethne“), he’d have used a preposition such as en, ek or apo (cf. Gal 2:15; Rev 5:9; 7:9; 11:9; Acts 2:5; 10:35; 15:19). But he doesn’t.

Thus Jesus’ point is neither that we should merely disciple people from every people-group, nor merely people from every nation-state, but rather that we should disciple entire nations. Of course this entails calling individuals to repent, but at the same time it anticipates the emergence of Christian nations: socio-political entities that together confess that Jesus is Lord, and who order both their individual lives and corporate affairs accordingly.

27But I say to you who hear,

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

29To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also,

and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.

30Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.

31And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

32If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.

33And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.

34And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.

35But love your enemies,

and do good,

and lend, expecting nothing in return,

and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.

36Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

(If you’re not convinced of this, then please look away now. Seriously, you’ll have a much happier day.)

So then, if you’re convinced of this, a number of questions arise about what it would look like in practice. In particular, questions are sometimes raised about how such a system would cope with tricky situations, some of which were raised by a friend of mine in a recent email. Consider for example the following (apparently) problematic scenarios:

• Who, if anyone, would prevent you from polluting the stream that crosses your land (and flows onto someone else’s), or prevent someone else from polluting the air that blows in through your front door?
• Who, if anyone, would prevent the construction of a 40-storey tower block overshadowing the next-door neighbour’s garden?
• What, apart from the National Trust, would prevent the entirety of the UK being urbanised?
• Who should run the roads? Is a system of private, toll-based road ownership actually feasible? In the absence of compulsory purchase orders, would a single landowner be able to thwart the construction of a motorway that everyone else in the country wanted?
• Would it be possible, on the basis of the right of free association and governmental non-interference, to open a bar with a sign on the door saying, “No blacks, Jews or Irish”?
• Can the market work properly in the face of information assymetry? In the absence of food hygiene laws, is each customer
  responsible for evaluating the cooking practices of each take-away before they buy anything?
• What about food labelling? If it’s wrong for the government to force food manufacturers to print allergy information information on boxes, who would protect the hyper-sensitive from anaphylaxis?
• Should freedom of speech extend to speech which is blasphemous or revolting?
• Would such a political system defend those who digitally create child porn (where no harm is [allegedly] done to “real” children)?
• What space, if any, would exist for religions other than Christianity?
• In the meantime, should we accept those state handouts which – if we’re right about the proper scope of the state’s power – entail a tyrannical abuse of governmental authority?

Here are a couple of thoughts by way of reply.

Free market sanctions would solve the vast majority of these alleged difficulties; Christian charity and wisdom would take care of the rest.

Taken together, these two mechanisms would mean that air pollution and ugly buildings would be disincentivised by the fact that no one would sell me food if I polluted the air/environment in this way, since they’d either be adversely affected themselves, or they’d care about others who were. The same would apply to whites-only bars, housing estates on top of Ben Nevis and irritating landowners who thwarted motorway construction. If enough people cared about it (and if it was a significant enough issue, then by definition enough people would care about it) the threat of such sanctions would do the job.

That same care would ensure that charitable agencies (and indeed commercial enterprises) would independently set up food hygiene watchdogs and allergy information registration services, which (if they were any good – which they would be, because ppeople’s lives would depend on them) food manufacturers would then be compelled by the power of the market to join. “I ain’t gonna sell any fish-and-chips in this town unless I’ve got the hygiene badge…”

Freedom of speech on matters of personal conviction would extend to everything, without state sanctions (though of course state sanctions would exists in matters such as as lying under oath, false testimony in business transactions, mis-selling, etc.) Similarly, people would be free from state sanctions to worship whatever god they like in the privacy of their own home. (Since there would of course be no such thing as “public property,” the current difficulties with indirect state subsidies of religious premises – the provision of land, transport links, etc – would not arise.) But that would not entail freedom from all sanctions. Market sanctions would still apply, the church would exercise the power of the keys against blasphemy and lying and so on among its members, and the Lord will certainly punish every act of disobedience on the Last Day.

(For the avoidance of all doubt, both the church and the Lord would also exercise severe sanctions against whites-only bars.)

Moreover, these factors alert us to the fact the we’ll never have a free market of this kind until the gospel has conquered much more of the world, since you’d need a largely Christian society to make it work. But you knew that already, right? If you want to change the world starting today, preach the gospel.

Finally, in the meantime you’re perfectly at liberty to receive state benefits if in so-doing you are merely exploiting the foolishness of Pharaoh’s own idolatrous legislation to reclaim some of the excessive tax that you and your household will pay during your lifetime. Once you add up VAT, income tax, NI, alcohol duty, council tax, insurance premium tax, airport tax and everything else, I don’t see a problem with receiving a few quid a week in child benefit.

Introduction

In this session of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’re moving from the doctrine of sin to the doctrine of Christ with the first of two sessions on the incarnation. We’ll be reading Athanasius, On the Incarnation, which discusses the purpose of the incarnation by considering the de-creative effects of sin and our consequent need for renewal in the image of the Creator. In the following session we’ll reflect on the nature of the incarnation, the two natures of Christ and so on.

Athanasius was one of the greatest minds of the early church – a theological giant whose writing cannot be ignored by anyone serious about getting to grips with historic Christian thought. This week’s reading is slightly shorter than in some previous weeks, but don’t be deceived – there are fewer words, but they need to be chewed carefully.

On the Incarnation is available free online here, and hard copies will be provided for students formally enrolled on the Guided Reading Course. We won’t be reading the whole work – the questions focus on just the first five chapters, though I encourage you to read the sixth chapter if you have time.

Almost as good as Athanasius’ work (though not quite) is C. S. Lewis’s introduction to the St Vladimir’s Seminary Press edition. This is also available free online here. It’s well worth reading – if only to hear Lewis’s reminder of the immense value of reading old books – though we probably won’t have time to discuss it at length during the tutorial.

The questions focus on just chapters I-IV (sections 1-25), though you may find it helpful to read chapter V also. If you’re pressed for time, omit the questions marked with a *.

Questions for reflection

i. If Adam had not sinned, would God the Son have become incarnate? Why or why not?

ii. Has Jesus achieved anything since his incarnation that is not directly related to dealing with the consequences of sin? (You might like to take a look at Genesis 1:26-28; Psalm 8; Hebrews 1:1-2; 2:5-8.)

iii. “Jesus died with his arms outstretched, showing his desire to draw all men to himself.” What do you think of this kind of exegesis?

Study questions

Chapter I

1. Why, according to Athanasius, was the Word of God “manifested in a human body” (section 1)?

2. What three “opinions” about “the making of the universe and the creation of all things” does Athanasius discuss in section 2? What do you make of his critique of these three views?

3. What does Athanasius believe would have happened to Adam and Eve if they had not sinned (section 3)? Do you agree? What biblical evidence might be relevant?

For reflection: Would the Word of God have become incarnate if man had not sinned? Why or why  not? What do you think Athanasius would have said?

4. What does Athanasius mean when he says that fallen man was “[turning] back again according to their nature” (section 4)? Can you think of any biblical evidence to support what Athanasius says here?

5. “The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it” (section 4). Can you explain Athanasius’ argument here? (See also section 5.)

Chapter II

6. Can you explain clearly and precisely the nature of “the divine dilemma” (section 6)?

7. Why would repentance have been an inadequate remedy (section 7)?

For reflection: Can you think how this aspect of Athanasius’ argument might be helpful in apologetics and evangelism?

8. How did the incarnation solve “the divine dilemma” (section 8-9)?

For reflection: Athanasius returns to this point repeatedly in the following chapters, often in very thought-provoking ways. Make a note of them as you go along.

9. What place does the resurrection have in Athanasius’ explanation of the work of Christ (section 9; see also section 22)? Do you find this persuasive? What biblical data might be relevant?

10. “The solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which death has lost its power over all” (section 9). What do you think of Athanasius argument here?

11. What do you make of Athanasius’ use of biblical data in section 10?

Chapter III

*12. “When God the Almighty was making mankind,” what limitation did he perceive in them (section 11)? How did he resolve this (section 11)? How did man respond to this act of divine grace (section2 11-12)?

*13. What did God do “in face of this dehumanising of mankind” (section 13; cf. section 14)?

14. Why, according to Athanasius, was it so beneficial for us that God “became Himself an object for [our] senses” (section 15)? Do you agree with Athanasius here? Why or why not?

15. Why did Christ not “offer [his] sacrifice on behalf of all the moment he came” (section 16)?

16. What “paradox” does Athanasius discuss in sections 17-18?

Chapter IV

17. Can you identify the different reasons why, according to Athanasius, Jesus died a public rather than a private death (sections 21-25)?

*18. Do you agree with Athanasius that Christ’s body “did not see corruption” (section 21)? Why? What implications, if any, does this have for Jesus’ human nature?

19. On what basis does Athanasius conclude that there is “no excuse … for those who would divide the church” (section 24)? What do you think of his argument here?

20. What significance does Athanasius perceive in the outstretched arms of the crucified Christ, and in the fact that Jesus was “lifted up” on a cross (section 25)?

For reflection: How do you feel about exegesis like this?

If you have time, read chapter V too, though we probably won’t have time to discuss it in the tutorial.

Introduction

In session 32 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, we reach the transition point between what is sometimes called the accomplishment of redemption (the work of Christ for us) and the application of redemption (the work of God’s Spirit in us bringing the benefits of Christ’s work to us). Calvin embarks on this topic at the beginning of book III of his Institutes, which is appropriately subtitled “The way in which we receive the grace of Christ, what benefits come to us from it, and what effects follow.”

These chapters lie at the heart of Calvin’s doctrine of salvation, for here he expounds the doctrine of Spirit-worked union with Christ by faith. It is through this union that everything Christ has accomplished becomes ours.

We’ll be looking at Calvin’s Institutes, III.i-ii (1:537-592), although the second of these chapters is rather long, so we’ll not be covering all of it. The questions take us up to III.ii.20 (1:537-566); you may find it helpful to read the remaining sections too, though we won’t discuss them in detail during the tutorial.

You might find it helpful to have in mind the following outline of chapter ii:

III.ii.1-7         Introduction to the subject, culminating in the definition of faith in section 7.
III.ii.8-13       Various misunderstandings and errors
III.ii.14-43     More detailed exploration of the definition of faith given in III.ii.7

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

Questions for reflection

i. What does the Holy Spirit do?

ii. Can the non-elect believe in Christ?

iii. How much does someone need to understand in order to be saved?

iv. Can someone be saved while lacking assurance of salvation?

Study questions

This first chapter of book III is a brief introduction to the work of the Spirit – the subject that will dominate the following chapters of the Institutes.

1. Calvin begins III.i.1 with a question, “How do we receive those benefits which the Father bestowed on his only-begotten Son?” What is his answer? Try to explain in as much detail as you can.

2. How many scriptural titles for the Holy Spirit does Calvin identify in III.i.3? How do these titles relate to the work of the Spirit?

3. What, according to Calvin, is “the principal work of the Spirit” (III.i.4)?

For reflection: Does this help you to understand why Scripture places so much emphasis on faith?

Having raised the subject of faith in the previous chapter, Calvin now discusses the subject in more detail in III.ii.  Here, to remind you, is a rough outline of the chapter:

III.ii.1-7         Introduction to the subject, culminating in the definition of faith in section 7.
III.ii.8-13       Various misunderstandings and errors
III.ii.14-43     More detailed exploration of the definition of faith given in III.ii.7

In III.ii.1 Calvin explains that the object of Christian faith must be Christ himself. This leads him to address the idea of “implicit faith,” which was popular in some circles during the medieval period.

*4. Calvin doesn’t spell out explicitly what “implicit faith” is, but can you work it out from what he does say in III.ii.2-5 (especially section 2)?

5. How does Calvin define faith in III.ii.6-7? How is it related to the knowledge of God, and to the word of God?

For reflection: Do you agree with Calvin’s position here? If so, would you wish to nuance it when discussing the salvation of mentally handicapped people or young children?

In III.ii.8-13, Calvin discusses what he regards as a series of misunderstandings about faith, including the distinction between “formed” and “unformed” faith, and “temporary faith”.

Let’s begin in III.ii.8-9, where Calvin addresses the distinction, common among medieval Catholic theologians, between “formed” and “unformed” faith.

6. Can you work out from III.ii.8 what is meant by “unformed faith”?

7. How many arguments against the idea of “unformed faith” can you find in III.ii.8-9?

In III.ii.11-12, Calvin considers whether the reprobate (those who will not finally be saved) can ever have faith.

For reflection: Calvin considers Hebrews 6:4-6 and Luke 8:13 in III.ii.11. What bearing do these passages have on the question of whether the reprobate can have faith?

8. How does Calvin explain Hebrews 6:4-6 and Luke 8:13 in III.ii.11-12?

For reflection: Are you persuaded by Calvin’s explanation of these passages? If you think he is wrong, what alternatives can you think of?

In III.ii.14-43 (the rest of the chapter), Calvin explores in more detail the definition of faith set out previously in III.ii.7. He begins in III.ii.14-16 by talking about the kind of knowledge and certainty that faith entails.

9. According to Calvin, what kind of “knowledge” does faith entail (III.ii.14)?

10. According to Calvin, what kind of “certainty” is experienced by those whose faith is genuine (III.ii.15-16)?

For reflection: What do you think of what Calvin says in III.ii.14-16? Do you have any pastoral concerns about what he might be implying?

11. In III.ii.17, Calvin anticipates the objection that “believers experience something far different” from what he has been describing. What do they experience?

12. How does Calvin respond to this objection in III.ii.17? In particular, what points does Calvin make from the following biblical texts?

• Psalm 42:5, 11; 43:5
• Psalm 31:22
• Psalm 77:7-10
• Psalm 92:12
• Psalm 27:14

For reflection: Do you think these texts adequately support Calvin’s response to the objection? Can you think of any other biblical texts that might be relevant to the discussion? (Mark 9:24; Romans 4:19-20?)

13. How does Calvin seek in III.ii.18-20 to resolve the tensions highlighted in the previous sections?

If you agree, you can say so here.

The debate will be broadcast at 2:30pm this coming Saturday, 3 March 2012, and after this time you’ll be able to listen online to the podcast at premierradio.org.uk. If after listening to the debate you have any questions, feel free to get in touch either with me, or with Chris, or with Premier.

I’m going to take a wild guess about what’s going to happen next.

Just to remind you, it turns out that lots of people in positions of power within organisations that exist to serve and protect the public (the media, the police, and so on) have in fact been abusing their power in various ways for personal gain, thereby harming the very people they were supposed to protect.

Want to know what’ll happen next? It’s obvious, surely.

Someone will suggest that we need another organisation with even more power than those which have been causing trouble to act as a “Watchdog,” thereby ensuring that the media, the Police, and so on do in fact serve and protect the public as they are supposed to do. A new “Police and Media Regulator,” or perhaps an “Office for Public Information” (OFFPUBIN?) or something.

And next?

Within a decade, someone on the staff at OFFPUBIN will be hauled before another enquiry to explain why they have been abusing their power in various ways for personal gain, thereby harming the very people they were supposed to protect.

“Put not your trust in princes,” as someone once said.

Jeremiah 32 records that “the army of the King of Babylon was beseiging Jerusalem” while Jeremiah the prophet was locked away within the palace of Israel’s King Zedekiah. A pretty desperate situation for all concerned, wouldn’t you think? At the very least, you wouldn’t think that the people of Judah would need much persuading that they could be in a spot of trouble.

So King Zedekiah – never too quick to spot what everyone else can see  – goes in to see his prisoner, and asks, “Why do you prophesy and say, ‘Thus says the LORD: Behold, I am giving this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall capture it?’” (v. 3). Right at the moment when Israel’s defeat seems inescapable, Israel’s King gets stroppy because the LORD’s spokesman simply states the obvious.

To take just a couple of examples, Paul evidently assumes that children will be present when his letters are read to the churches (Ephesians 6:1-3; Colossians 3:20), and and children were present when Ezra assembled the Israelites to renew the covenant (Nehemiah 10:1). (Compare also Deuteronomy 31:12; 2 Chronicles 20:13; etc.)

Introduction

Session 31 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course brings us to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, an aspect of the atoning work of Christ. This follows from the previous session’s introduction to the work of Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, and has in recent decades become somewhat controversial in evangelical circles. With this in mind, we’ll address the issue by looking at some sections from Jeffery et al, Pierced for Our Transgressions, a recent work on this subject. Here’s an outline of what we’ll be reading:

• Introductory material (pp. 21-32)
• Some biblical data (pp. 67-73)
• Some objections and responses (pp. 240-249, 265-278)
• Some thoughts about illustrations used by preachers (pp. 329-336)

As we reflect on this material, we’ll have the opportunity to consider other aspects of Christ’s atoning work as well.

Questions for reflection

i. “It’s unjust for Christ – an innocent man – to be punished for the sins of others.” How would you respond?

ii. What problems might arise from the claim, “Christ bore the sins of all people”?

iii. Is it helpful when preachers tell stories and use illustration in their sermons? Why or why not?

Study questions

We’ll start with a brief look at the introduction to the book (pp. 21-32), which sets the scene for the work.

1. What is “the doctrine of penal substitution” (p. 21)? How many different significant parts of this definition can you identify? Why is each part significant?

2. What is “the more disturbing thing” (p. 25)?

For reflection: Why do you think the authors found this “more disturbing”? Do you agree with them? Why or why not?

*3. How would you describe the overall structure of the book (pp. 31-32)? Is this a helpful way to divide up the subject? Can you think of any particular strengths and weaknesses?

We turn next to a short section in the “Biblical foundations” chapter, on the Gospel of Mark (pp. 67-73), where the authors consider two passages, Mark 10:33-45 and Mark 15:33-34.

4. What is significant about “Jesus’ passing reference to ‘the cup I drink’” (p. 68) in Mark 10:38 (pp. 68-70)? How do the authors understand the imagery of the “cup” (pp. 69-70)? Do you agree with them?

5. How is the authors’ understanding of Jesus’ death informed by the biblical symbolism of “darkness” (pp. 71-72)

We turn now to the second part of the book, in which the authors answer a number of objections to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement.

The authors begin this section on pp. 205-207 by explaining what they are seeking to do, and why.

6. Why did the authors feel it was important to engage in detail with specific objections to their position (pp. 205-207)?

For reflection: Does this approach make you feel uncomfortable? If so, can you identify why?

Next we’ll look at some of the specific objections, and the authors’ responses, in detail. Feel free, of course, to read other sections of the book that catch your eye, and to bring any questions with you to the tutorial.

Section 10.1 (pp. 240-249)

7. Summarise the objection outlined on pp. 240-242.

For reflection: Do you find this objection compelling? Before you read on, consider how you might respond to it.

8. The authors “begin by noting…” what (p. 242)?

9. Why is “the willingness of Christ’s suffering” (p. 242) an insufficient response?

10. How does the doctrine of union with Christ address the objection in this section (pp. 242-245). How does Luther’s analogy help (p. 244)?

*11. The authors claim that “the theme of corporate moral responsibility is far more pervasive in Scripture than is commonly realized” (p. 245). What do you think of the examples of this on pp. 245-248?

12. The authors conclude this section by highlighting three further “consequences of denying that our guilt could be imputed to Christ” (p. 248). What are these consequences (pp. 248-249)? Are you persuaded?

Section 10.4 (pp. 265-267)

13. Summarise the objection outlined on pp. 265-266.

14. How do the authors respond (pp. 266-267)?

For reflection: Have you heard this explanation before? Are you persuaded?

Section 10.5 (pp. 268-278)

15. Summarise the objection outlined on pp. 268.

16. Eleonore Stump rejects “premise (a),” the belief that Christ “pays the debt of those for whom he died” (p. 268). What alternative approach do the authors take (pp. 268-269)? How does this address Stump’s objection?

17. According to Roger Nicole, what is the doctrine of “particular redemption” (sometimes called “limited atonement”)?

18. What five arguments in favour of particular redemption do the authors outline on pp. 271-275?

For reflection: Is it possible to consistently believe in penal substitutionary atonement while also denying the doctrine of particular redemption?

Finally, we’ll turn to the appendix, entitled, “A Personal Note to Preachers” (pp. 329-336).

19. What problem do the authors identify on pp. 329-331 with some contemporary illustration of penal substitutionary atonement?

For reflection: Have you ever heard the illustrations mentioned here before? What do you think about them?

20. What “seven questions” (p. 334) do the authors encourage preachers to ask themselves before using a particular illustration of penal substitution (pp. 334-335)? Does an illustration need to be perfect in every way in order to be useful (p. 336)?

Introduction

Having concluded our study of the doctrine of sin and its effects, we turn now in session 16 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course to the doctrine of providence. We’ve already encountered this doctrine in passing, as we’ve reflected on the relationship between human sin and divine sovereignty. Now we consider it in more detail.

We’ll be looking at Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, pp. 165-178 and Calvin’s Institutes, I.xvi-xviii (1:197-237). This is slightly more material than we’d usually try to cover, but you’ll be able to move quite quickly through the early sections of Calvin, as much of the material will have been covered in Berkhof. As ever, if you’re short of time, omit the questions marked with a *.

A word of caution from Calvin before we begin: “We must so cherish moderation that we do not try to make God render account to us, but so reverence his secret judgments as to consider his will the truly just cause of all things” (Institutes, I.xvii.1).

Questions for reflection

i. Are you comfortable with the thought that God is sovereign over everything in creation?

ii. Why might God deliberately conceal from us the reasons for some of the things he does?

iii. How would you feel if you discovered today that according to the Bible God is not in sovereign control of everything in creation?

Study questions on Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 165-178

Section A discusses providence in general, in preparation for sections B to D (covering each of the “three elements in providence” and section E (covering miracles).

1. How does Berkhof define providence (p. 166)? Can you explain what is meant by each of the “three elements in providence” (p. 166)? Why might these distinctions be useful?

2. “While we distinguish three elements in providence, we should remember that these are never separated in the work of God” (p. 167). What does this mean?

3. What theological arguments (as distinct from arguments drawn from explicit biblical texts) could be used to oppose the three misconceptions Berkhof describes on pp. 167-168?

• prescience (i.e. foreknowledge) or prescience plus foreordination;
• the deistic view;
• the pantheistic view.

Section B discusses preservation, the first element in providence.

4. How is the doctrine of preservation related to the doctrines of God and creation (p. 170)?

5. How does Berkhof describe the doctrine of “continuous creation” (p. 171)? What, in his view, is wrong with this position? Can you think of any other problems with it?

Section C discusses concurrence, the second element in providence.

6. What is wrong with illustrating the concurrence of divine and secondary causes as “a team of horses pulling together” (p. 172)?

7. How does Berkhof reply to the claim that his view of divine concurrence “makes God the responsible author of sin” (p. 174; cf. also p. 175)? Is his defence adequate?

Section D discusses government, the third element in providence.

8. What perspective upon providence does divine government emphasise? (p. 175)

Section E discusses miracles.

9. How might the “distinction … between providentia ordinaria and providentia extraordinaria [ordinary providence and extraordinary providence]” (p. 176) be useful in conversation with an atheist who believes miracles are impossible?

Study questions on Calvin, Institutes, I.xvi-xviii

I suggest that you move quite quickly through chapter xvi, since much of this material is covered well in Berkhof.

*10. As you read through I.xvi, where in particular do you find themes which are echoed in Berkhof?

Chapter xvii is predominantly pastoral in character, being concerned with how we may apply the doctrine of divine providence to our greatest benefit. Accordingly, the intention of question 11 in particular is to encourage you to reflect in the pastoral implications of God’s providence.

11. What pastoral implications follow from the following observations? Can you think of practical situations in which these lessons might be particularly important?

• “However hidden and fugitive from our point of view the causes may be, we must hold that they are surely laid up with him” (I.xvii.1).
• “We must so cherish moderation that we do not try to make God render account to us” (I.xvii.1).
• “He who has set the limits to our life has at the same time entrusted to us its care; he has provided means and helps to preserve it” (I.xvii.4).
• “Then the heart will not doubt that God’s singular providence keeps watch to preserve it, and will not suffer anything to happen but what may turn out to its good and salvation” (I.xvii.6).

12. How does Calvin address the issue of God’s “repentance” (I.xvi.12-14)?

Chapter xviii addresses the vexed issue of God’s sovereignty over sinful actions. Here Calvin explains how God remains holy even when sovereignly upholding the sinful actions of the wicked.

13. Why, according to Calvin, do some adopt a “distinction … between doing and permitting”? What does Calvin think of this distinction? What biblical data does he cite to support his view (I.xviii.1)?

14. How does Calvin believe God’s will is related to human actions (I.xviii.2)?

15. “But even though [God’s] will is one and simple in him, it appears manifold to us” (I.xviii.3). Why does Calvin feel it necessary to make this clarification? What does he mean by it?

*16. What point does Augustine make in the lengthy quote with which Calvin believes “all godly and modest folk agree” (I.xviii.3)?

*17. What point is proved by the example of “the choice of king Jeroboam” (I.xviii.4)?

*18. What advice does Calvin have for “those for whom this seems harsh” (I.xviii.4)? Do you agree?

Here are some biblical texts where the LORD God is said to create, bring forth, cause, bring, decree, form or speak evil (ra’, sometimes translated “disaster”) against people:

• The LORD creates ra’: Isaiah 45:7
• The LORD brings forth ra’: Lamentations 3:38
• The LORD causes ra’: Amos 3:6
• The LORD brings ra’: Job 42:11; Jeremiah 4:6; 6:19; 11:11; 19:3; 23:12; 32:23; 32:42; 42:17; 44:2; 45:5; 49:37; 51:64
• The LORD decrees ra’: Jeremiah 11:1
• The LORD forms ra’: Jeremiah 18:11
• The LORD speaks ra’: Jeremiah 19:15

Of course, God does not bring about evil in the same way that sinful human brings do. The LORD does not sin in bringing about evil, for example. But a defence of the unchanging goodness of God in the face of moral evil cannot rely of a diminution of God’s sovereign control over the actions performed. A heftly dose of Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin and Francis Turretin is probably a better place to start.

Introduction

We continue our study of the doctrine of sin and its effects in session 14 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, looking this week at Calvin, Institutes, II.iii-v (1:289-340). Here’s an outline of these three chapters:

II.iii      The capacity of the fallen human will, and how God works in us to draw us to him.

II.iv      How is God involved in evil human actions.

II.v       Answers to objections.

These three chapters are quite long, so don’t worry if you don’t have time to finish them all. As ever, if you’re short of time, omit the questions marked with a *.

Questions for reflection

i. If our inherited corruption makes sin inevitable, how can God hold us responsible for it?

ii. If God is sovereign over our sins, why is he not morally responsible for them?

iii. When Christ draws someone to him, does that person come to him willingly or unwillingly?

Study questions

1. What, according to Calvin, is meant by the Scriptural description of fallen man as “flesh” (II.iii.1)?

2. What biblical texts does Calvin cite in II.iii.1-2 to support his view of the depravity of human nature? In your view, do these texts adequately support Calvin’s point?

3. “Almost the same question that was previously answered now confronts us anew” (II.iii.3). What is this question, and how does Calvin answer it?

4. Calvin argues that fallen man sins “willingly, not unwillingly or by compulsion” (II.iii.5)? What does he mean by this? Why is it important?

5. Can you summarise how, according to Calvin, “divine grace corrects and cures the corruption of our nature” (II.iii.6)?

6. How does Lombard misrepresent Augustine’s statement that “grace precedes every good work” (II.iii.7)? What “two things” does Calvin emphasise in order to prevent this misunderstanding?

7. What biblical texts and other arguments does Calvin adduce in II.iii.8-9 to support his view that all good in us “takes its origin from God alone” (II.iii.8)?

8. What does Calvin believe Chrysostom means when he said, “Whom he draws he draws willingly” (II.iii.10)? Why does Calvin object to this notion (II.iii.10)? How does Calvin’s position differ from Chrysostom’s (II.iii.10)?

9. What “most wicked error” does Calvin describe in II.iii.11? How does he respond?

10. According to Calvin, what contrast does Augustine draw between Adam’s unfallen will and our redeemed will (II.iii.13)?

In II.iv, Calvin addresses “the question whether we ought to ascribe to God any part of the evil works in which Scripture signifies that some action of his intervenes” (II.iv.1).

11. Can you explain the illustration Calvin cites from Augustine in II.iv.1? Does this strike you as a biblical way of thinking?

12. In what sense(s) are God, Satan and man all active participants in the same events (II.iii.2)? How do Calvin’s scriptural examples serve his point here (II.iv.4-5)?

In II.v, Calvin considers a number of objections against his understanding of the human will.

*13. Summarise (a) the objections set out in the following sections; and (b) Calvin’s response to them. Do you find Calvin’s responses persuasive?

• II.v.1
• II.v.2
• II.v.3
• II.v.4-5

*14. Some of Calvin’s critics claim that “God’s precepts [are] so accommodated to our capacities that we are of necessity able to fulfil their demonstrable requirements” (II.v.6). What does this mean, and how does is serve as an argument against Calvin’s view? How does Calvin respond (II.v.6-11)?

*15. Calvin considers a number of other arguments against his position in II.v.12-19. Try to outline these arguments and Calvin’s responses to them. Which position do you find most persuasive?

Introduction

In previous sessions we have laid the groundwork for the construction of a Christian doctrine of salvation by studying God’s work in history (Bible overview; Covenant Theology), God’s decrees in eternity (the doctrine of election), and the intersection of God’s decrees and human history (covenant and election). We now turn our attention specifically to Christ, the author of our salvation, the one about whom all Scripture testifies, in whom all God’s covenant promises are fulfilled – God’s chosen one par excellence.

In particular, we’re looking this week at the three so-called “Offices of Christ” – Prophet, Priest and King – with the help of Calvin, Institutes, II.xv-xvii (1:494-534). This study of Christ’s work for his people paves the way for future sessions in which we’ll be considering the application of Christ’s work to his people.

Questions for reflection

i. How did Christ accomplish salvation for us?

ii. According to your answer to the previous question, did Christ need to be a King? Did he need to be a prophet?

Study questions

In II.xv, Calvin describes in outline Christ’s three offices of Prophet, Priest and King

1. Why does Calvin believe that “the title ‘Christ’ pertain to [all] three offices,” namely, Prophet, Priest and King (II.xv.1)?

For reflection: Can you think of any biblical texts that support Calvin’s claim here?

2. With what was Jesus anointed?

For reflection: What might the previous answer imply about the imagery of “oil” in the Bible? (You might find it helpful to glance ahead briefly to II.xv.5.)

3. “Then this anointing was diffused from the Head to the members” (II.xv.2). What does Calvin mean by this? Why is it important?

Calvin turns in II.xv.3-5 to Christ’s kingly office in particular.

4. Calvin says that Christ’s kingship is “spiritual in nature” (II.xv.3). What does he mean by this, and what inferences does he draw? (II.xv.3-5)

5. How does Calvin contrast “this earthly life” and “the heavenly life” (II.xv.4)? Do you agree?

For reflection: What pastoral implications does Calvin draw in II.xv.4 from the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingship?

6. What does Christ do in his priestly office (II.xv.6)?

In II.xvi, Calvin explains how Christ has redeemed and saved us. This involves a discussion of Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension.

7. Can you identify the different ways in which Calvin describes our predicament as sinners (II.xvi.1)?

8. “If God was angry with us because of our sin, how could he have loved us enough to send his son to redeem us?” How would Calvin reply, according to  II.xvi.2-4?

9. Consider these two quotations: “Because the Lord wills not to lose what is his in us, out of his kindness he still finds something to love” (II.xvi.3); God “knew how, at the same time, to hate in each one of us what we had made, and to love what he had made” (II.xvi.4, quoting Augustine). What does Calvin mean? Why is it important?

10. How, precisely, does Calvin believe Christ has abolished sin, reconciled us to God and “acquired righteousness” for us (II.xvi.5)?

11. What does Calvin mean when he says, “the cross was accursed” (II.xvi.6)?

In II.xvi.8-12, Calvin discusses the controversial phrase, “He descended into hell,” which is found in the Apostles’ Creed.

12. What does Calvin think is meant by the statement in the Creed, “He descended into hell” (II.xvi.8-12)? Do you agree?

For reflection: Should we say “Christ descended into hell” when we say the Creed at church?

13. What, according to Calvin, did Christ’s resurrection accomplish (II.xvi.13)? Would you want to add anything here?

14. What did Christ achieve in his ascension (II.xvi.14-16)? Why is this significant?

*15. Why is it significant that our Judge is our Redeemer (II.xvi.18)?

In II.xvii, Calvin discusses the idea of “merit,” a term which has historically been used by some theologians in their discussion of the work of Christ.

*16. Why do some people dislike the word “merit” (II.xvii.1)? Do you think their concern is legitimate? How does Calvin respond (II.xvii.2)?

*17. What does Calvin seek to demonstrate by his citation of Galatians 3 and Isaiah 53 in II.xvii.4?

If you want to read a pdf version of this article, you can do so here.

A very practical doctrine

For many Christians, the doctrine of the Trinity does not seem very practical. It seems strange and obscure. Perhaps it even seems contradictory – how can God be both one and three at the same time? The doctrine of the Trinity seems like the theological equivalent of Mount Everest: very beautiful and mysterious, but for experts only – far too difficult for ordinary believers.

This view is understandable, but I believe it is mistaken. It’s true that the doctrine of the Trinity contains some mysterious depths, but the same could be said about any biblical doctrine. Perhaps it’s a little trickier to think specifically about God himself than to think about other aspects of the Bible’s teaching, for God’s ways are above our ways. But God wants us to know and understand him more, so by his grace we should be able to make some progress if we are willing to think carefully.

If we do this, we will also discover that the doctrine of the Trinity is a wonderfully practical doctrine. Its implications touch many different aspects of our lives. In particular, understanding a little about the Trinity will encourage and help us to grow more like Jesus and to love one another.

This little essay is not a full and detailed explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity. If that’s what you’re looking for, I encourage you to read the relevant sections of Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, and Augustine’s On the Trinity. But if you’ve never thought much about the Trinity before, hopefully this essay will be a start. I hope especially that it will help and encourage you in practical ways to live the Christian life, for that is the purpose of all Christian doctrine.

We’ll start with a brief introduction to the basics of the Trinity. To save space I won’t quote all the relevant biblical texts; you’ll find them in the books mentioned above (especially Berkhof). Then we’ll look in turn at two different practical implications: (1) human differences and human dignity, and (2) self-giving love and service.

The basics of the Trinity

The Bible teaches that there is one God. Through Moses, God taught Israel this fundamental profession of faith, “Hear O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Everywhere in Scripture this is either declared or assumed. The world has only one Creator; we have only one Redeemer; no one and nothing else is worthy of our worship. The LORD alone is God, and there is no other.

In technical terms, belief in one God is called “monotheism,” from mono (meaning “one”) and theos (meaning “God”). There is no need to be worried about such technical terms; they are intended as labels to help us understand as clearly as possible what we are talking about, so that we don’t get confused. Another helpful technical term is “divine essence.” The divine essence is just the thing that God is, so we say that there is only one divine essence because there is only one God.

Yet Scripture also reveals God as three “persons” (another helpful technical term): the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Bible makes clear that these persons are distinct from each other, because they have relationships with each other, and it’s impossible for one person to have a relationship with himself. These relationships are seen very clearly when the persons do things to each other or for each other. For example, the Father loves the Son, sends the Son, speaks to the Son, and gives the kingdom to the Son. The Son does the Father’s will, prays to the Father, and glorifies the Father. Both the Father and the Son send the Spirit, and the Spirit in turn obeys the Father and glorifies the Son. So although God is one, it is equally clear that God is also three – Father, Son, and Spirit. The technical term for this is “triune,” from tri (meaning “three”) and unus (meaning “one”).

This is where people sometimes get a little confused, because it sounds strange to say that God is one and three at the same time. But there’s no need to worry; if we take one step at a time we should be fine.

Let’s start by thinking about one of the persons: the Father. The Bible teaches that the Father is worthy of worship, because he is God. But suppose we ask, What is it about the Father that makes him worthy of worship? What is it about the Father that makes him God? The answer must be that he possesses the divine essence, for the divine essence is God, and only God is worthy of worship. This also means that the Father is holy and all-powerful and all-knowing and so on, because the divine essence is holy and all-powerful and all-knowing. These characteristics of God (along with all the other descriptions of God in the Bible) are sometimes called “divine attributes” (another helpful technical term). We say that God the Father possesses all the divine attributes because he fully possesses the divine essence, which means that everything about God that sets God apart as God belongs to the Father.

Now, think for a moment about what it means for someone to be a father. If a friend said to you, “I am a father,” you would know immediately that he must have a son. The very fact that someone is a father necessarily means that there must be a son somewhere as well (or a daughter, but let’s not complicate things unnecessarily!). You can’t be a father without having a son, because having a son is how a father becomes a father. Moreover, sons tend to resemble their fathers. My son looks very similar to me – he has the same eyes, the same hair, the same nose. The existence of a father necessarily implies the existence of a son who will in many ways be like him.

The situation is similar with God. As soon as we think about God the Father, we will start to think about God the Son. If God the Father exists, then God the Son must exist too. Moreover, since sons tend to resemble their fathers, we would expect God the Son to resemble God the Father. So, since God the Father possesses the divine essence, the Son must also possess the divine essence too. Like the Father, the Son must be holy and all-powerful and all-knowing and so on because the divine essence is holy and all-powerful and all-knowing. Since there is a divine Father, there must also be a divine Son.

This highlights an important difference between us and God. Human sons are like their fathers in some ways, but not all. My son’s hair and eyes are similar in colour to mine, but they are not exactly the same. He is also a good deal shorter then me, with smaller hands, fewer teeth, and so on. By contrast, God the Father and God the Son are identical in every respect. This must be so, because the thing that makes the Father and the Son alike is the divine essence, and there is only one divine essence. The divine essence cannot be chopped up into pieces – one piece for each person – because then there would be more than one God, and we know that this can’t be true because it would contradict the biblical doctrine of monotheism. So God the Father and God the Son must be identical in the sense that they both fully possess the divine essence and (therefore) all the divine attributes.

But this raises a question: if the Father and Son both possess all the divine attributes, what is the difference between them? The answer is simple: they are distinguished by the relationship between them. The Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son. This is a real distinction, but not a difference in essence (there’s that useful word again). There is no distinction in God-ness between the Father and the Son; there is only a relational distinction.

In order to keep things simple, we have not mentioned the Holy Spirit for a while. If we did, exactly the same logic would apply. The Bible describes the Son as the Word of God, and the Spirit as the Breath of God. If there is a Word (God the Son), then there must be a Speaker (God the Father), and vice versa. There must also be a Breath (God the Holy Spirit), who carries the Words that the Speaker says. So if we start thinking about any one of the divine persons, we immediately realise that the other two persons must exist as well.

It’s important to understand that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three “parts” of God. This would mean that God is divided into three pieces, which would destroy the one-ness of God (divine monotheism). Equally, the three persons are not merely three “faces” of God, as if God had three “masks” which he used in turn. This would undermine the genuine three-ness of God. Rather, the very thing that God is – the divine essence – is three persons, Father-Son-and-Holy-Spirit, in an eternal communion in which each person shares with the others all that they have and are.

Now that we’ve thought a little about the relationships between the persons of the Trinity, we’re ready to explore some practical implications for our lives.

Human differences and human dignity

We are all different from each other. We all have different gifts, different characters, different lives and different opportunities. No two people anywhere in the world are exactly alike.

These differences sometimes cause difficulties for us. For example, in a church where clear, insightful biblical teaching is valued greatly, a believer who found it hard to understand the Bible might easily feel inadequate. He might find it hard to follow the sermons that everyone else gets so excited about, and he probably wouldn’t think he could ever teach anything useful to anyone else. Or again, single Christians sometimes look longingly at those who are married, and wish their circumstances were different. Christians who are mentally or physically handicapped may have many reasons to ask why they could not be like someone else. At one time or another, all of us have probably envied the gifts, lives or opportunities of others. “Why can’t I preach like him? Why can’t I sing like her?” All of us sometimes wish we could be like someone else.

This way of thinking is wrong, and the doctrine of the Trinity helps us to see why. If we think about God, we realise that there is more than one way to be infinitely, eternally glorious. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all different, yet they are all equal. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Yet all three persons are equal in majesty, power and glory, for they each fully possess the divine essence. The doctrine of the Trinity shows us that there is more than one way to be perfect.

In a similar way, there are many different ways for a human being to please God. When God gave us different gifts, he didn’t make us different in value or dignity. Just as the divine persons are relationally different yet equal in divine glory, so also despite our differences we are all able to be a delight to God. Of course change is often good for us too – it’s great for a student to work at his reading, and it’s fine for a single person to seek marriage. Yet the doctrine of the Trinity teaches us to be content with how we are in the meantime. For it’s perfectly possible to please God as a married man or as a single woman, as a Minister with three theological degrees or as a two-year-old child who has just learned to say, “I love Jesus.” These human differences are designed by the triune God himself to reflect his majesty, for in him diversity is glorious.

Self-giving love and service

God commands us in Scripture to love and serve one another. Jesus showed us this when he famously said, “Now that I have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet” (John 13:14). Similarly, the apostle John urges us to “Love one another, for love comes from God” (1 John 4:7). The Christian life is a life of cross-carrying, sacrificial love for one another.

Such loving service rarely seems attractive. No one apart from Jesus volunteered for the foot-washing during the last supper, and similarly today the least glamorous tasks in the church are often the least popular. Who wants to get up early on a cold Sunday morning to prepare the church for worship, or stay late at night to clear up after everyone else has gone home? Who wants to visit the sick, or care for the elderly, or make soup for the homeless? Ministries like these are exhausting, and though we all know that God commands such service, it’s sometimes hard to find the motivation to take part.

The doctrine of the Trinity can help us here, for it teaches us the vital lesson that giving is receiving. Think of it this way: God the Father gives himself to God the Son. He doesn’t hold back, but shares everything with him. Everything that the Father has and is – the entire, undivided divine essence – he shares with the Son. The Father quite literally gives himself away. The Son therefore lacks nothing that the Father has. All the Father’s divine glory and majesty belongs to the Son as well, because the Father pours himself out to the Son.

But does this mean that the Father loses anything? As the Father gives himself to the Son, does he lose out? Not at all! On the contrary, only by giving himself to the Son can the Father exist as the Father. If the Father were to stop giving himself to the Son, then of course the Son would cease to exist; but if the Son did not exist then the Father could not exist either! For as we have seen, there cannot be a Father unless there is also a Son. Picture the Father crying out in a loud voice, “You are my Son!” The louder he cries, the more he pours himself out for the Son. Yet at the same time, the louder he cries, the more clearly we hear the Father’s own voice. It is by giving himself to the Son that the Father receives his own existence as the Father.

The same lesson applies in human relationships. All genuine service involves giving something of ourselves. We know this from experience – we expend mental, physical, and emotional energy when we care for the sick or clean the church toilets. Yet giving ourselves in this way does not diminish us. On the contrary, it increases us. We were created to reflect the life of the Trinity, and when the persons of the Trinity give, they also receive. This is one reason why “it is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). It is not just that we should be more concerned about the good of others than our own comfort (though of course this is true). But more than this – it is precisely by serving others that we ourselves find blessing, for in the very action of giving to others we receive as well.

Only by faith in the triune God of the Bible – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – can we live like this. For only by such faith can we be confident that giving is receiving. Genuine living faith will therefore always lead us along the path of self-giving love and service. Wonderfully, the reverse is also true. As we give ourselves to serve one another, our faith will be strengthened, for we will experience the blessing that comes from serving others – and this can only come from the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

“In a very accessible way Michael Reeves writes about God as Trinity in order for both our understanding and faith to grow. In The Good God, Michael Reeves writes about growing in our enjoyment of God and seeing how God’s triune being makes all his ways beautiful. He sees it as a chance to taste and see that the Lord is good, to have our hearts won and ourselves refreshed.”

Click here to download the lecture notes, and see below for a list of additional questions (not in the exam) to encourage further reflection on this part of God’s word:

1. Why was Israel supposed to conquer the land of Canaan (1:2)?
2. What would you say to someone who claimed that the conquest of Canaan was barbaric and unjustified?
3. What did the tribe of Judah do that was particularly good in 1:3-5?
4. What tribe did Jesus come from? In the light of 1:3-5, why might this be significant?
5. What did the tribe of Judah do that was particularly bad in 1:6-7?
6. Why was Kiriath-Sepher a significant place to conquer (1:11-15)?
7. What is special about “the three sons of Anak” (1:20)?
8. Compare and contrast the story of the man from Luz (1:22-26) with the story of Rahab in Joshua 2. What is significant about the contrasts?
9. What repeated phrase summarises Israel’s failure in 1:27-34?
10. What decisive event happens in 1:34?
11. Explain the two underlying reasons for Israel’s failure (2:1-10).
12. Why, according to 2:6-10, might it be a bad idea to send your kids out of the church service and place them in Sunday school?
13. If you decided to keep your kids in the church service, what kinds of liturgy and preaching would help you to do so?
14. Outline the so-called “cycle of the Judges” exemplified by Othniel (3:7-11).
15. Why is it significant that Ehud is a left-handed Benjaminite (3:15)?
16. What do the people of Israel (3:15) have in common with King Ahaz (2 Kings 16:8)?
17. What really happened in 3:21-25?
18. How long did Shamgar take to kill the 600 Philistines (3:31)?
19. What advice would Shamgar have for the contemporary church?
20. What do Deborah’s first words tell us about her (4:6)?
21. What do Barak’s first words tell us about him (4:8)?
22. How do you think Deborah might have reacted when she first met Jesus?
23. What advice would Jael give to a newly-converted Christian woman married to an unbeliever who tried to stop her from going to church (4:16-24)?
24. Compare and contrast the Song of Deborah and Barak (5:2-31) with your favourite Christian songs.
25. How are you likely to feel if you never sing any war songs?
26. Why is it significant that the Israelites were forced by the Midianites to hide in caves in the ground (6:2)?
27. What is surprising about the LORD’s response when Israel “cried out” to him in 6:7-8?
28. What does 6:1-10 tell us about the real reason for the economic and cultural development of nations?
29. Why was Gideon beating out wheat in a wine-press (6:11)?
30. How would Gideon’s friends have reacted when he offered to the LORD “unleavened cakes made from an ephah of flour” (6:19)?
31. Who made the cake of barley bread that destroyed the Midianite tent in the Midianite man’s dream (7:13)? Where did the chef find all that flour?
32. What would the Midianites have seen and heard on the night when they were defeated by Gideon’s army (7:19-22)? Where in the Bible have we seen something like this before?
33. Should Israel have had a king during the days of the Judges? Why or why not?
34. Why is it significant that the women said in Ruth 4:17, “a son has been born to Naomi”?
35. What is significant about the Israelites’ request in 8:22 that Gideon and his sons should rule over them?
36. Roughly how much gold did Gideon collect (8:26)? What would have been a wise thing to do when he realised how much he had received?
37. Where else in the Bible do we read about a collection of gold ear-rings (8:24-26)?
38. Is it a problem for Gideon to have “many wives” (8:30)? Why?
39. What is significant about the name “Abimelech,” which Gideon gave to his son (8:31)?
40. How does Abimelech initially seek to persuade the people of Shechem to support him (9:2)?
41. According to Jotham’s fable, where will the fire come from (9:15)? What does this tell us about the way God deals with his people when they reject him as their king?
42. How did Abimelech die (9:53-54)? Does this remind you of anyone?
43. What is missing in 13:1-2? Why might this be?
44. Where in the Bible have you seen a story like 13:2 before?
45. Which character from the New Testament is most similar to Samson as he is depicted in 13:1-7? What do we learn from how these two characters died?
46. Samson would only “begin to save Israel” from the Philistines; who would finish the job? What light does this shed on the other character mentioned in the previous question?

“Since he is risen and is our head, we are also risen in him. Tell me, I pray you, when one holds his head above the deep and deadly waters of a fast flowing stream, do we not say that he has escaped death even though his other bodily members are yet below the surface? The same holds true for us, who are all one body in Christ. Our head is risen from the depths of death. Even though we may appear to be overwhelmed in the mortal stream, yet we are risen in him. We must either deny that he is our head or acknowledge that we are members of his body – in which case we are compelled to affirm that our resurrection has begun in his.”

Then, in 2010, a chap called Derek Flood wrote an article in the Evangelical Quarterly, in which he alleged that we had misunderstood many of these historical texts, and in particular that “the dominant pattern found in these patristic writers is substitutionary atonement understood within the conceptual framework of restorative justice.”

Enter Dr Garry Williams. In a response to Derek Flood, also published in EQ, he says, “it is unfortunate that [Flood] in his article does not engage directly with my own material, especially since I was able to devote more space to close exegesis of the patristic texts than was available to the authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions.”

He continues, “My aim here is to show by still closer exegesis that the passages in question do teach penal substitutionary atonement.”

Finally, lest anyone should wish to try their luck again, Garry explains that there he stilll has more in the bag: “I say ‘closer’ because the constraints of space still restrict the level of attention that can be given here [in the EQ article responding to Flood] to the passages. In due course I hope to publish a full-length treatment of the patristic evidence for penal substitutionary atonement that will offer more sustained exegesis of these passages and of a considerable number of further examples.”

Garry Williams’ article is available online here.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

On this definition, it would seem that Jesus was the least reasonable man of all.

Or rather, he is, for of course he’s still at it.

So then, how does Jesus’ reply address the Pharisees’ objection? Try this set of parallels:

David and his disciples are being chased around, oppressed by the ungodly ruler, Saul.
Jesus and his disciples are being followed around, hassled by the ungodly leaders, the Pharisees.

David is seeking to establish the Kingdom of God in Israel, with himself enthroned as Israel’s true king.
Jesus is preaching the Kingdom of God in Israel, declaring that he is Israel’s true king.

David’s men are holy warriors, risking their lives to serve their king.
Jesus’ disciples are holy warriors, giving their lives to serve their king.

David’s men are tired and hungry, so God provides holy bread to sustain them.
Jesus’ disciples are hungry, so Jesus provides food to sustain them.

This also makes sense of another couple of details.

(1) Why would the Pharisees react with such hostility at the end of this section of the Gospel (Luke 6:11)? In part, perhaps, because of the implied parallel between them and Saul. The typology “You’re-a-bit-like-Saul” has never been very popular.

(2) Where does the food come from? In 1 Samuel 21, it comes from the holy place – the sanctuary. In Luke 6, it comes from the fields. But this is not a replacement of holy food with unholy food. It’s a new kind of holiness. Previously, the holy things were confined to the sanctuary; now the holiness of God has overflowed from the sanctuary into the land on its way out into the world. Now that Christ has come, holiness is found wherever he is found.

Other versions of the ESV (yes, there are other versions of the English “Standard” Version – lots of them, with more following in the third (!) edition) replace “excrement” with “dung”.

Well, OK, fair enough. At least it’s better than the NIV’s lame attempt to render the final phrase: “the fat closed in over it.” Right, whatever. After all that effort, Ehud, that’s how the NIV translators think your exploits should be remembered. And to think that you had to put up with that revolting smell…

Ideally, we want a word that conveys the biological details while raising the appropriate giggles from the church’s younger members. “Pooh” would probably do it. Almost. The Hebrew parshedon is not an expletive, but neither is it the kind of description you’d get from a coroner. It’s the word we all use for the stuff we all know he’s talking about, except that we don’t use it in polite company.

Ironically, that’s exactly what the translators are trying to avoid: generations of teenage boys gathering around Bibles after church to snigger at all the naughty bits, and then to insist that the same linguistic conventions should apply at Sunday lunch when Great Aunt Mabel comes to visit. (Lads: For the sake of clarity and the avoidance of all doubt, the fact that a particular word is found in the Bible does not by itself mean that the same word is appropriate in other contexts. You’ll need a better argument than that.)

It’s a shame, really, because one important reason what Judges 3:22 says what it says is precisely to give teenage boys something to laugh at – the stinking mess in the throne-room of a Pagan King.

We, the undersigned, call upon our government:

1. to recognise that Christians around the world currently face unprecedented levels of persecution and are one of the most persecuted groups in the world;

2. to put the plight of persecuted Christians, both individually and as communities, at the forefront of their relations with the countries concerned;

3. to promote freedom of religion for all, using diplomatic relations, bi-lateral ties, aid, and agreed international obligations on core human rights;

4. to promote justice for all and specifically to ensure that those who incite hatred or act violently against Christians are held accountable for their crimes.

Try filling this in for a week.

Introduction

We remain on the doctrine of sin and its effects in week 14 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, as we consider the effects of sin on the human will. After a brief detour into John Murray’s Imputation of Adam’s Sin, we’re back with Calvin’s Institutes, II.ii (1:255-289). Murray led us through a consideration of the imputation of Adam’s sin, guilt and corrupt nature to his posterity; Calvin now explores the effect of this inherited corruption on our capacity for good and evil, and in particular the tricky subject of Free Will.

We’ll try to achieve two things in this tutorial. First, as usual, we’ll work through the reading to seek to grasp what Calvin is saying. Second, we’ll step back slightly and try to get a fuller picture of what the Bible teaches about the relationship between human freedom, human sin, human moral responsibility, and God’s sovereignty. This will take us into the work of Jonathan Edwards, though you won’t need to read anything from his writings before the tutorial.

If you’re pressed for time, skip fairly quickly over sections 2-9 of Calvin, and omit the questions marked with a *.

Outline

• Discussion of Calvin, Institutes, II.ii.
• Broader discussion of human freedom, moral responsibility, divine sovereignty, etc.

Questions for reflection

i. “If God is sovereign, he can’t blame me for my sin.” Discuss.

ii. Can unbelievers do good? Explain your answer, with examples if possible.

iii. Can believers do good? Explain your answer, with examples if possible.

Study questions

1. What question does Calvin set out “to investigate more closely” (II.ii.1)?

2. What are “the perils that threaten man on both sides” (II.ii.1)? How does Calvin urge us to avoid them?

In II.ii.2-9 Calvin expounds the views of various philosophers and theologians on the subject of the human will. He discusses “the philosophers” such as Cicero, Plato and Aristotle (sections 2-3); the church fathers (section 4); Lombard (sections 5-7); Augustine (section 8); before summarising his view of them in section 9.

*3. What do “the philosophers” believe about human capacity for good and evil (II.ii.2-3)?

*4. What does Calvin think about the doctrine of the freedom of the will espoused by the Church Fathers (II.ii.4)?

*5. Lombard declares at the end of II.ii.6 that “we have free will, not in that we are equally capable of doing or thinking good and evil, but merely that we are freed from compulsion.” What does Calvin think of this statement (II.ii.7)? Do you share Calvin’s reservation here?

After a brief introduction to this part of the chapter at the start of II.ii.12, Calvin discusses in turn the effect of the fall on man’s “understanding” (II.ii.12-17) and spiritual discernment” (II.ii.18-21).

6. What effect, according to Calvin, has the fall had on humanity’s “natural gifts” and “supernatural gifts” (II.ii.12)? Do you agree with this distinction? What effect did the fall have on the will (II.ii.12)?

7. How does Calvin account for the competence of unbelievers in fields such as art and science (II.ii.14-16)? Do you agree? You might find it helpful to look also at section II.iii.3.

8. What does Calvin believe fallen human reason is able (and unable) to discern concerning what he calls “God’s Kingdom” and “spiritual insight” (II.ii.18-25)? Do you agree?

9. How does Calvin interpret Romans 2:14-15: “When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do the works of the law, they are a law to themselves … and show that the work of the law is written on their hearts” (II.ii.22)? Do you agree with this interpretation?

Introduction

In recent weeks we’ve looked at the outworking of God’s plan of salvation in history (O. Palmer Robertson on Covenant Theology in The Christ of the Covenants) and the origin of God’s plan of salvation in eternity (John Calvin on the doctrine of election). We now bring these two topics together with an article by American theologian and Pastor John Barach entitled “Covenant and Election” (pp. 15-44 in The Federal Vision, ed. S. Wilkins and D. Garner [Monroe: Athanasius Press, 2004]).

This article helps us to think through the practical and pastoral relevance of the doctrine of election. In particular, it highlights some problems which (according to Barach) can arise from a common Reformed misunderstanding of the doctrine of election, and proposes what he regards as a more biblical alternative which avoids these problems.

It’s important to realise here that Barach is discussing an issue about which there is disagreement within the Reformed tradition. This is helpfully reflected in the gracious and measured tone of Barach’s article – a tone which of course should characterise all such discussions. At the same time, the pastoral issues at stake are potentially quite significant, and Barach’s article therefore rightly poses some challenging questions, which if we are wise we will want to engage with in a clear-headed and robust way.

Questions for reflection

i. What is “assurance of salvation”?

ii. Can assurance of salvation be experienced? If so, how?

iii. Does the doctrine of election have anything to do with assurance?

iv. Should a professing believer ever be excluded from the Lord’s Table? Why or why not?

Study questions

1. How, according to Barach, should we approach the subject of election (pp. 15-17)? What particular mistakes must we take care to avoid (pp. 15-17)?

For reflection: Do you notice here any echoes of Calvin’s approach to the doctrine of election (see Institutes, III.xxi. 1-4)?

2. What does Barach believe about the doctrine of predestination? (pp. 17-18)

3. “There are [Reformed] churches where perhaps twenty out of seven hundred partake of the Lord’s Supper” (p. 19). What flawed logic leads to this practice (p. 19)? What response does Barach make briefly on p. 19?

For reflection: How do you think you would feel if you, as a believer, were refused admission to the Lord’s Table (either at your church or elsewhere)?

Barach now summarises two views on the relationship between election and the covenant: (1) The Arminian view; and (2) What he calls “one Reformed view” which is “more popular in our circles.”

Let’s look at the Arminian view first.

4. How does Barach summarise the Arminian position on election (pp. 19-20)?

*5. Read the following extract from Francis Turretin’s description of the Arminian doctrine of election:

“[The Arminians] attribute a certain causality to faith, so that God is moved by its foresight to choose this rather than that one … Moreover, they make a twofold decree of election: the first general, of saving believers; the second special, of saving individuals by name whom God foresaw would believe” (Turretin, Institutes, IV.xi.7; 1:356-357).

Does Barach agree with Turretin about the Arminian doctrine of election? If not, how do they differ?

Now let’s look at what Barach calls “one Reformed view” which is “more popular in our circles.”

6. What is the other view of election and the covenant which is “more popular in our circles” (p. 20)?

7. “This view presents a number of pastoral problems” (p. 20). What are these problems (pp. 20-21)? What happens “if we hold this view consistently” (p. 21)?

For reflection: Do you agree with Barach that this view of election and the covenant will tend to produce the problems he describes?

Having outlined this second view of the relationship between covenant and election, Barach now proceeds to critique it, and to propose an alternative view.

8. What point does Barach seek to make from Hebrews 10 and John 15?

For reflection: Do you agree with this exegesis of Hebrews 10 and John 15?

9. What alternative view about “the relationship between covenant and election” does Barach propose (p. 23)? Who else (according to Barach) also held this view? (Barach also discusses the historical pedigree of this view on pp. 39-41.)

According to Barach, some who hold this view distinguish sharply between covenant and election (bottom of p. 23). However, he argues, “This isn’t the way Scripture speaks” (p. 24).

10. How, according to Barach, does Scripture use the language of God’s “chosen ones” and “elect ones” (pp. 24-26)? What texts does Barach mention in this context?

11. “The Old Testament election involved the whole body and it involved history. But that was the Old Testament. Election revealed in the New Testament is a different kind of election” (p. 27). How does Barach reply (pp. 27-31)?

For reflection: What do you think of Barach’s response? Do the following New Testament texts add anything to this discussion?

• 1 Corinthians 10
• Jude 5
• Romans 9-11, especially Romans 11:17-21

12. “We need to hold three things together as we think about the relationship between covenant and election” (p. 31). What are these three things (pp. 31-32)?

*13. What will happen “If we try to do our theologizing and our pastoring and our speaking to God’s people from the perspective of God’s eternal predestination” (p. 32) rather than from the perspective of the covenant (pp. 32-33)?

14. Barach discusses several possible descriptions of someone who is a member of God’s covenant people for a time but then falls away (p. 36)? What are these different descriptions? What are their strengths and weaknesses?

15. “If apostasy is a real danger, can we ever have assurance?” (p. 39). If so, how?

For reflection: Has Barach’s article changed the way you think about assurance of salvation? If so, how?

Introduction

Session 28 of the Guided Reading Course takes us back to Calvin’s Institutes (III.xxi-xiv; 2:920-987), where we’ll be looking at the doctrine of election.

This topic follows naturally from our previous sessions of the doctrine of salvation. So far we’ve looked at an overview of the Bible (Peter Leithart, A House for My Name), before looking in particular at how God’s relationship with his people has unfolded through history in a series of covenants (O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants). Now we pull back the curtain of history, so to speak, and look into eternity, as we consider the fountainhead of all God’s blessings to his people – God’s eternal decree of election.

Calvin seems to use the terms “predestination” and “election” slightly differently here in the Institutes. “Predestination” refers to God’s eternal decree (i.e. decision) concerning every part of a person’s life. “Election” refers to God’s eternal decree concerning whether or not a person will be saved.

There’s quite a lot of reading in these four sections, so you probably won’t be able to finish it all in the time available. As ever, let the study questions guide you, and if you’re pressed for time omit the questions marked with a *.

Outline of Calvin, Institutes, III.xxi-xxiv

III.xxi Introduction to the doctrine of election

III.xxi.1             Introduction

III.xxi.1-2         First wrong way of approaching the doctrine of election

III.xxi.3-4         Second wrong way of approaching the doctrine of election

III.xxi.5-7         Definitions

III.xxii Biblical evidence for the doctrine of election

III.xxiii Misunderstandings of, and objections to, the doctrine of election

III.xxiii.1           Misunderstanding 1: Election is true but reprobation is not

III.xxiii.2-5       Objection 1: Election is unjust

III.xxiii.6-9       Objection 2: Election takes guilt and responsibility away from man

III.xxiii.10-11   Objection 3: Election implies that God shows favouritism

III.xxiii.12         Objection 4: Election takes away all motivation for godliness

III.xxiii.13-14   Objection 5: Election makes rebukes and encouragements pointless

III.xxiv.1-11 How God deals with the elect

III.xxiv.12-17 How God deals with the reprobate

Questions for reflection

i. Calvin describes the doctrine of election as “a baffling question” (III.xxi.1). Do you agree? Why?

ii. “The doctrine of election is very complicated and confusing. We shouldn’t teach it – especially not to young Christians.” Discuss.

iii. “If God chooses to save some people, that must mean that he chooses to damn everyone else.” Discuss.

Study questions

1. Calvin believes that “we shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the wellspring of God’s free mercy until we come to know his eternal election” (III.xxi.1). Why?

For reflection: Do you agree with Calvin’s claim that only the doctrine of election can persuade us fully of God’s free mercy?

In the last part of III.xxi.1, Calvin mentions “two kinds of men,” whom he then discusses in the following sections:

III.xxi.1-2 The first kind of men

III.xxi.3-4 The second kind of men

2. According to Calvin, what mistakes do “the first kind of men” and “the second kind of men” make (III.xxi.1-4)? How does Calvin respond to each mistake?

For reflection: How might Calvin have answered the second “Question for Reflection,” above?

In III.xxi.5-7 Calvin defines the terms “predestination” / “election,” and “foreknowledge,” explaining the distinction between the election of the Israelite nation and the election of specific individuals.

3. How does Calvin define “foreknowledge” and “predestination” in III.xxi.5?

4. What biblical evidence does Calvin cite to support his definition of predestination in III.xxi.5?

5. What two “degrees” of election does Calvin discuss in section III.xxi.6-7? What are the similarities between them? What are the differences between them?

In III.xxii Calvin explains in more detail the doctrine he has summarised in the previous chapter. He begins by tackling an important misunderstandings of the doctrine of election.

6. What misunderstanding does Calvin describe in the first paragraph of III.xxii.1?

For reflection: Why do you think many people might be attracted to the misunderstand Calvin mentions?

7. What biblical texts and other arguments does Calvin cite in III.xxii.1-5 to support his position? Are you persuaded?

8. What biblical texts and other arguments does Calvin cite in III.xxii.7 to support his position? Are you persuaded?

*9. In III.xxii.8, Calvin cites Romans 9:14, “What then? Is there injustice with God?” Calvin notes that Paul does not respond with a certain argument at this point. What is this argument, and why is its omission significant?

*10. What is “the subtlety of Thomas [Aquinas]” (III.xxii.9)? How does Calvin respond?

In III.xxiii, Calvin responds to some misunderstandings of, and objections to, the doctrine of election. The chapter falls into the following sections:

III.xxiii.1              Misunderstanding 1: Election is true but reprobation is not

III.xxiii.2-5          Objection 1: Election is unjust

III.xxiii.6-9          Objection 2: Election takes guilt and responsibility away from man

III.xxiii.10-11      Objection 3: Election implies that God shows favouritism

III.xxiii.12            Objection 4: Election takes away all motivation for godliness

III.xxiii.13-14      Objection 5: Election makes rebukes and encouragements pointless

11. Briefly explain each misunderstanding and objection in turn, and explain how Calvin responds in each case.

• III.xxiii.1              Misunderstanding 1: Election is true but reprobation is not
• III.xxiii.2-5          Objection 1: Election is unjust
• III.xxiii.6-9          Objection 2: Election takes guilt and responsibility away from man
• III.xxiii.10-11      Objection 3: Election implies that God shows favouritism
• III.xxiii.12            Objection 4: Election takes away all motivation for godliness
• III.xxiii.13-14      Objection 5: Election makes rebukes and encouragements pointless

For reflection: How would Calvin respond to someone who said, “If God has predestined my sin, he can’t blame me for it.” (See objection 2, III.xxiii.6-9)

Unless you are a very fast reader you probably won’t have time to look at III.xxiv in much detail. However, here are some questions to guide your reading – either now or at some time in the future.

*12. Does Calvin think we can be sure of our election (III.xxiv.1-5)? If so, how?

For reflection: Do you find any problems with Calvin’s argument here?

*13. What biblical texts come to the forefront in Calvin’s discussion of the perseverance of the elect (III.xxiv.6-11)? Should any others have been mentioned?

*14. Why does Calvin take such trouble to distinguish two different senses of “election” in his discussion of Judas (III.xxiv.9)?

*15. What differences exist between God’s dealings with the elect and his dealings with the reprobate (III.xxiv.12-14)?

Introduction

In this session we’re continuing our study of the doctrine of original sin, looking at chapters 3 and 4 of John Murray’s book The Imputation of Adam’s Sin. This will complete our overview of Reformed (and some other) positions on the subject. Alongside Murray, I’ve also included some questions on Calvin, Institutes, II.i. You almost certainly won’t have time to read all this material, so please don’t try to. Instead, read whichever sections you feel most able and most inclined to. We’ll cover all the bases in the tutorial.

Murray’s book has been re-printed as the appendix to Justified in Christ (ed. K. Scott Oliphint; Fearn: Christian Focus, 2007). The page numbers are different from the original, but the section markers and chapter headings remain intact, so we’ll use them (rather than the page numbers) to guide us through the questions.

(Just a quick reminder: the term “impute” means “count,” or “reckon”. Therefore to say that sin is “imputed” to someone means that it is “counted” against them, or “reckoned” to stand against them.)

Here’s a reminder of what Murray has said so far.

• In chapter 1 (sections I and II), Murray outlines the crucial text (Romans 5:12-21), and summarises four different views of the phrase “in that all sinned” (Romans 5:12). These views were (1) The Pelagian view (we imitate Adam’s sin); (2) The Roman Catholic view (non-culpable sinful state imputed, but no sinful act imputed); (3) Calvin’s view (culpable sinful state imputed, but no sinful act imputed); (4) The classical Protestant view (sinful state and sinful act imputed). Murray takes view (4).
• In chapter 2 (section III), Murray asks what kind of union between Adam and his descendants can account for the imputation of this sin. The two options are (1) Realist; (2) Federalist/representationist. Murray takes option (2).

This sets the stage for the next chapter, in which Murray addresses the following questions:

• In chapter 3 (section IV), Murray asks how the sin of Adam is imputed to his descendants. He considers two options: (1) Mediate imputation; (2) Immediate imputation. These terms are explained by Murray, and also in the text below.
• In chapter 4 (section V), Murray considers the character of our involvement in Adam’s sin. This is a complex chapter, and is not especially relevant for our purposes, so we won’t spend much time on it.

This material is some of the most complex we have yet encountered. It’s very worthwhile, but please don’t worry if you find it a bit baffling – just do what you can, and skip the questions marked with a * if you’re pressed for time.

I’ve also included some questions on the relevant chapter in Calvin’s Institutes (II.i). This is considerably easier than the final section of Murray; you might like to spend your time looking at Calvin instead. Whatever you spend your time reading, we’ll have plenty of opportunity in the tutorial to gather together the various loose ends.

Here, building on the partial outline from last week, is a full outline of the contents of Murray’s book:

Outline of Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin

Chapter 1

Section I: Syntax of Romans 5:12-21

Section II: The meaning of “in that all sinned” (Romans 5:12)

(1) The Pelagian interpretation

(2) The Roman Catholic interpretation

(3) Calvin’s interpretation

(4) The Classical Protestant interpretation

Chapter 2

Section III: The nature of the solidarity between Adam and his descendants

(1) The Realist view

(2) The Representative (i.e. Federalist) view.

Chapter 3

Section IV: The mode of the imputation of Adam’s sin to his descendants

(1) Mediate imputation

(2) Immediate imputation

Chapter 4

Section V: The character of our involvement in Adam’s sin

Study Questions on Murray, Imputation, chs 3-4

Chapter 3 (section IV)

Chapter 3 is divided into two parts: (1) Mediate imputation; (2) Immediate imputation. Here’s a quick definition of these terms:

The doctrine of mediate imputation states that the sin of Adam is not imputed directly to his posterity; instead, Adam’s corrupt and sinful nature is imputed directly, and Adam’s sin is imputed as a consequence of the imputation of Adam’s corrupt nature. The imputation of Adam’s sin is thus mediated through the imputation of his corrupt nature.

The doctrine of immediate imputation states that the sin of Adam is imputed directly to his posterity, and that we inherit Adam’s corrupt nature as a consequence of the imputation of his first sin. The imputation of Adam’s sin is thus immediate – it is not mediated through the imputation of his corrupt nature.

More detailed explanations are found early in this chapter of Murray, to which we now turn. Questions 1 to 10 focus on the first part of the chapter; questions 11 and 12 focus on the second.

1. What was Placaeus accused of believing by the 28th Synod of the Reformed Churches in France in 1644-45?

2. Murray helpfully explains what Placaeus actually believed: “In a word his position was…” what?

For reflection: How do you think Placaeus would have felt when he received news of the decrees of the 28th Synod of the Reformed Churches in France?

After a brief discussion of some of the debates that took place at the 28th Synod of the Reformed Churches in France, Murray proceeds to outline the views of some other theologians whose views in some (though not necessarily all) respects resembled the doctrine of mediate imputation. We’ll look particularly at Samuel Hopkins, Nathanael Emmons, Timothy Dwight and Nathaniel W. Taylor, before turning our attention to the altogether more sophisticated and subtle theology of Jonathan Edwards.

3. What did Samuel Hopkins believe about the imputation of Adam’s sin?

For reflection: Why might Hopkins’s position seem attractive?

4. What is wrong with Hopkins’s position? Why can Hopkins’s view “scarcely be classified with the other exponents of mediate imputation”?

5. What underlying conviction do Nathanael Emmons and Timothy Dwight share?

*6. What “two explicit denials” were made by Nathaniel W. Taylor? What did Taylor affirm? What problems could you identify with Taylor’s position?

We turn now to Jonathan Edwards’s doctrine of original sin. Here it gets a little complicated. Try to follow the threads as well as you can, but don’t despair if you feel a dull headache coming on. The tutorial will relieve the pain. In fact, if you’re pressed for time (or feeling slightly cross-eyed) then I suggest you skip straight on to question 11.

*7. What did Charles Hodge and William Cunningham think Jonathan Edwards believed? What did B. B. Warfield think Edwards believed?

*8. What does Edwards’s position have in common with a doctrine of immediate imputation? How did he differ from Hopkins?

*9. What does Edwards mean when he rejects the idea of “double guilt”?

*10. Why does Edwards’s belief that “The evil disposition is first, and the charge of guilt consequent” not imply a doctrine of mediate imputation?

For reflection: How might Edwards rebut the claim that the imputation of Adam’s sin to his descendants is unjust?

We turn now to the second part of section IV, the doctrine of immediate imputation.

11. What arguments does Murray set forth in favour of the doctrine of immediate imputation?

*12. Does the fourth of Murray’s arguments in favour of immediate imputation challenge Jonathan Edwards’s position?

Chapter 4 (section V)

This final chapter is technical, and is not so significant for our purposes as the previous three. Don’t spend to much time on it – any questions, bring them to the tutorial

*13. What is the question under discussion in this section? How does it follow logically from the flow of the argument so far?

*14. What did Charles Hodge believe is imputed to Adam’s descendants? What is the problem with this view?

*16. What do you make of Murray’s attempts to answer the question posed in this section?

Study Questions on Calvin, Institutes, II.i

17. Calvin says we may “divide the knowledge that man ought to have of himself” into two parts (II.i.3). What are these two parts? What are the goals of these two aspects of self-knowledge?

Section 4 is a description of the sin of Adam.

18. Why, in Calvin’s view, was Adam “denied the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (II.i.4)? What do you make of Calvin’s description of Adam’s sin in the second half of II.i.4?

19. What does Calvin think is meant by the phrase “original sin” (II.i.5, 6, 8)? How does his view differ from other Reformed position outlined by John Murray in The Imputation of Adam’s Sin? Having read Murray, do you think he represents Calvin accurately?

20. What are the “two things” that Calvin is at pains to clarify in the second part of II.i.8?

21. How much does Calvin say about the mode of transmission of sin from one generation to the next (II.i.7)? Do you find his explanation satisfactory?

22. How does Calvin respond to the objection that God has created us sinful (II.i.10-11)? In what sense is our sinful nature “natural” (II.i.11)?

Introduction

In the previous session we considered the creation of man. In session 12 we move on, following the biblical logic, to consider the fall of man and the doctrine of original sin. In this and the following session, we’ll be looking at John Murray’s book The Imputation of Adam’s Sin.

Murray’s book has been re-printed as the appendix to Justified in Christ (ed. K. Scott Oliphint; Fearn: Christian Focus, 2007). The page numbers are different from the original, but the section markers and chapter headings remain intact, so we’ll use them (rather than the page numbers) to guide us through the questions.

A couple of portions of Murray’s book are rather complex, so I’ve provided some explanation to help you find your way through them. Some of the questions relate to these sections, and I encourage you to have a crack at if you’re able to. But don’t worry if you run out of time or if you find them too hard to understand – that’s what the tutorial is for.

To help you get a feel for the shape of Murray’s book, I’ve included a brief outline below. The notes interspersed among the questions are also designed to help you keep track of the argument of the book.

At some point you might also want to read Calvin, Institutes, II.i (1:241-255). This is quite a short section, and is quite easy to get through, especially once you’ve had the orientation from Murray. The key parts are sections 4 to 8.

As ever, omit the questions marked with a * if you’re short of time.

Outline of Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, chs 1-2

Chapter 1

Section I: Syntax of Romans 5:12-21

Section II: The meaning of “in that all sinned” (Romans 5:12)

(1) The Pelagian interpretation

(2) The Roman Catholic interpretation

(3) Calvin’s interpretation

(4) The Classical Protestant interpretation

Chapter 2

Section III: The nature of the solidarity between Adam and his descendants

(1) The Realist view

(2) The Representative (i.e. Federalist) view.

Questions for reflection

i. How do you react emotionally and intellectually to the idea that unbelievers are condemned because of the sin of Adam? How do you think unbelievers would tend to feel about this?

ii. How do you react emotionally and intellectually to the idea that the unrighteous are justified through faith in Christ?

Study questions

Chapter 1 (Introduction; sections I and II)

The first couple of pages are an introduction to the subject.

1. Can you explain the “ancient conception” that underlies Paul’s argument in Romans 5?

For reflection: How prevalent do you think this “ancient conception” in the modern world? Can you think of any examples?

Section I is very short, and contains some brief comments on the crucial text, Romans 5:12-21. It paves the way for section II, entitled “The Sin Contemplated,” in which Murray explores several different interpretations of the relevant passage.

2. What does Murray regard as “the crux of the question”?

Before you go any further, spend a few minutes reading Romans 5:12-21 at least twice through. Unless you have memorised it (actually, that’s not a bad idea) you will be wasting your time from this point on if you’ve not recently read the biblical text that Murray is going to be talking about.

In the rest of chapter 1 (section II), Murray outlines and critiques four views of the crucial clause “in that all sinned” in Romans 5:12: (1) the Pelagian view; (2) the Roman Catholic view; (3) Calvin’s interpretation; and (4) the Classical Protestant interpretation. (Note the helpful numbering in the subsections.)

[Notice in passing that this is an example of significant variation within the Reformed tradition on an important theological issue. The Reformed tradition is far from uniform.]

3. What is the Pelagian view?

4. According to Murray, what is wrong with the Pelagian view? Which of Murray’s counter-arguments do you find most compelling?

5. According to the Council of Trent (the “official teaching of the Romish church”), what do Roman Catholics believe is transmitted to Adam’s descendants? What is not transmitted?

6. What is wrong with this view? (NB “Concupiscence” means “sinful desire”.)

*For reflection: Can you think of any biblical texts that explicitly disprove the Roman Catholic view that concupiscence (sinful desire) is “not itself truly and properly sin”?

7. In what respect(s) is Calvin’s view similar to the Roman Catholic view? How does his view differ?

Having outlined the views of Pelagianism, Roman Catholicism, and Calvin, Murray turns to his own position, which he calls “The Classical Protestant Interpretation.” He first sets out three considerations that the correct interpretation must account for.

8. According to Murray, what three “considerations” of Paul’s argument are accounted for in “the Classical Protestant Interpretation”?

9. Do you agree with Murray’s understanding of the text here?

10. What, according to Murray, is “the only solution” (final paragraph of the chapter) that can make sense of these exegetical considerations?

Chapter 2 (section III)

Having reached the conclusion at the end of chapter 1 that “there must be some kind of solidarity existing between the ‘one’ [Adam] and the ‘all’ [Adam’s descendants],” Murray proceeds in chapter 2 to consider the nature of this solidarity. He discusses the two options in turn:

(1) The Realist view (which Murray tends to call the “realistic” view);

(2) The Representative view (sometimes called the “federalist” view, or just “federalism”).

Let’s take them one at a time, beginning with the Realist view.

11. How does Murray summarise the “Realistic” view of the imputation of Adam’s sin? What do you think of this position?

The next few pages are a bit complicated. Let me give you a helping hand.

Murray clarifies that representation does not deny the realist view that “Adam is the natural head as well as the representative head of the race”; they simply insist that this natural union alone is insufficient to account for the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity. Moreover, representation agrees with realism that “the human nature which became corrupt in Adam is propagate to the members of the race”; they simply disagree that this human nature is “an entity that is specifically and numerically one.”

OK – can you feel a dull headache coming on? Don’t worry. Murray’s aim here is to identify more clearly the difference between the realistic and representative positions more precisely. Here goes:

Realists believe that there was in Adam a “thing” that was corrupted when he sinned, and this thing is “human nature,” and this human nature is transmitted to all Adam’s descendants, and this transmission gives rise to the unity between Adam and his posterity which is the sole explanation for the imputation of Adam’s sin.

Representationists (i.e. Federalists) believe that the unity between Adam and his posterity  is constituted in another way, namely by a divine decree according to which Adam is established as a “representative” head (or “federal” head) of the whole human race. This, federalists believe, is the sole basis of the imputation of Adam’s sin to his offspring.

All clear? If not, go back a couple of paragraphs and try again. If so, let’s have a crack at the next question:

*12. What does Murray call “the crux of the question” in the debate between realism and representationalism?

Murray then briefly discusses Calvin’s view (Calvin’s emphasis on the transmission of a corrupt nature does not imply that he was a realist) and Augustine’s view (it’s not certain that he was a realist either). If you have time, look at the following two questions.

*13. How would Murray respond if a realist claimed support from Calvin?

*14. What support could a realist claim from Augustine?

Next, Murray discusses the views of the realist W. G. T. Shedd, who raised some objections against the realist view.

*15. Why does Shedd think that “it is unreasonable to regard representative union of Adam and posterity as a proper basis for the imputation of Adam’s sin”?

*For reflection: What do you feel about the objection Shedd raises here?

Finally, at the end of the “Realist view” sub-section, Murray identified four problems with realism, numbered (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv).

*16. What four problems with realism does Murray identify? Are you convinced?

Murray turns now to the second major subsection in the chapter: an explanation and defence of the Representative view.

17. What aspects of the realist view does the representative view not deny?

18. What biblical data, which cannot be accounted for by realism, is the representative view able to explain?

19. What conclusion does Murray draw at the end of chapter 2?

Introduction

In session 27 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’re looking at the final two chapters of O. Palmer Robertson’s book, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). In this session we’re looking at the Davidic Covenant (ch 12) and the New Covenant (ch 13).

You’ll recall from the previous sessions 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.

As ever, if you’re pressed for time omit the questions marked with a *.

Questions for reflection

i. What is the “New Covenant”?

ii. Is the New Covenant breakable?

iii. What are the major differences between the New Covenant and previous covenants?

iv. What do you understand by the phrase “S/son of God”?

Study questions

We begin with chapter 12, looking at the Davidic Covenant, which Robertson calls “The Covenant of the Kingdom.” After a brief introduction, (pp. 229-230), Robertson makes some comments on the Davidic enthronement narrative in 2 Samuel 7 (pp. 230-234). He then addresses some distinctive features of the Davidic covenant (pp. 234-252) before looking at the historical outworking of the Davidic Covenant in the history of the Old Testament (pp. 252-269).

First, a quick look at the introduction (pp. 229-230).

1. “In the Davidic covenant God’s purposes … reach their climactic stage of realization so far as the Old Testament is concerned” (p. 229). What evidence does Robertson give to support this claim (pp. 229-230)?

For reflection: Why is it significant that there is a man on Israel’s throne at the “climactic stage” of God’s OT covenants with Israel? (Hint: Consider Genesis 1:26-28)

Now let’s look at the Davidic enthronement narrative in 2 Samuel 7 (pp. 230-234).

2. In preparation for the inauguration of the Davidic covenant, David “took Jerusalem from the Jebusites” (p. 230). Bearing in mind Genesis 3:15, Exodus 3:17 and Joshua 15:63, why might this be significant?

3. Explain the “interconnection between dynasty and dwelling-place” (p. 232).

For reflection: Why is the construction of a permanent dwelling-place for Israel’s God significant in the light of Genesis 12:1-3?

4. What does “son of God” mean in the context of the Davidic covenant (pp. 233-234)?

5. What Old Testament evidence does Robertson mention which points toward a “divine Messiah” (p. 234)?

Robertson now considers a series of distinctive features of the Davidic covenant (pp. 234-252).

6. Robertson describes Israel’s King as a “covenant mediator” (p. 235). What sorts of things does the King do in this capacity (p. 235)?

For reflection: What light does this connection between “Kingdom” and “Covenant” shed on the summary of Jesus’ teaching in Mark 1:14-15?

On pp. 243-252, Robertson considers the question of whether the Davidic Covenant is “conditional or unconditional” (pp. 244). Some such as R. E. Clements see the Davidic covenant as an outworking of the promise to Abraham (pp. 244-245); others such as M. Tsevat see a connection between the Davidic and Mosaic covenants (pp. 245-246). Robertson proposes another perspective which (unlike those just mentioned) does not involve alleging contradictions (Tsevat) or misrepresentations (Clements) inGRC-27a Scripture.

Robertson addresses the conditionality/unconditionality question in stages – first, considering the people of Israel corporately (pp. 246-247); second, considering individual participating in the covenant (p. 247).

7. “Is it certain that God’s purposes to establish a kingdom for himself among redeemed sinners shall be realized?” (p. 246). Why?

8. Does the certainty of God’s purposes guarantee “individual participation in the blessings of the covenant” (p. 247)?

Robertson turns next to the historical outworking of the Davidic Covenant (pp. 252-269). Among other things, this section highlights the connection between Israel’s King and God’s covenant with Israel (see especially p. 267). This section is well worth reading, though we probably won’t have time to discuss it in detail during the tutorial.

In the final chapter Robertson turns to the New Covenant, focussing much of his attention on the important prophecy of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34. You might like to read this text in its context before continuing.

9. Robertson identifies “several major motifs … which relate essentially to the new covenant concept” (p. 247) in Jeremiah 31 and related passages. What are these motifs (pp. 274-278)?

10. The “concept of newness [in the New Covenant] implies a break with the past” (p. 280). According to Robertson, what particular covenantal administration(s) is/are left behind (pp. 280-281)? Do you agree?

11. “Yet the newness of the new covenant must not stand in absolute contradiction to the previous covenants. A factor of continuity must be recognized” (p. 281). What aspects of continuity does Robertson identify (pp. 281-286)? Do you agree?

12. Why does Jeremiah emphasise the forgiveness of sins available under the New Covenant (p. 283)?

13. What is wrong with R. K. Harrison’s claim that the New Covenant manifested “personal, as opposed to corporate, spirituality” (p. 286)?

14. How does Robertson relieve “the tension between individuality and corporateness in the new covenant” (pp. 287-290)?

15. How does Robertson explain Jeremiah’s apparent insistence that under the New Covenant there will be no need for teachers (pp. 293-296)? Do you agree?

Not so.

According to Judges 20:28, the ark of God was at that time attended by a guy called Phinehas, the son of Eleazar. This is almost certainly the same Phinehas named in Numbers 25 – the one who put a stop to the plague caused by the Israelites’ idolatry with Midian during their wilderness wanderings. This Phinehas was apparently born after the exodus from Egypt, otherwise he’d have died in the wilderness like all of the generation that left Egypt apart from Joshua and Caleb. This means that he must have been somewhere between about 20 and 40 years old start of the conquest (no older, otherwise he’d have died in the wilderness with all the rest of that generation except Joshua and Caleb; not much younger, otherwise it’s hard to imagine him picking up a spear and skewering Zimri and his Midianite mistress with it). Assuming he lived no more than 120 years (Gen 6:3), the events described in Judges 17-21 must have taken place in the first 100 or so years (at most) after the start of the conquest.

Consequently, Judges 17-21 does not describe the result of the Judges’ rule, but its cause. They describe the kind of ungodliness within Israel that precipitated the decline during the first couple of generations after the conquest. When you read in the early chapters that “the Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of the LORD” (e.g. Judges 3:12; 4:1) this is what they were getting up to.

Here’s one particularly striking extract:

“We must not equate courage with success, or even youth with success … I have spent too much time in places like Japan, or in parts of the Muslim world, where courage is not measured on the world stage, where a single convert is reckoned a mighty trophy of grace. I am grateful beyond words for the multiplication of churches in Acts 29, but I am no less grateful for Baptist ministers like my Dad, men who labored very hard and saw very little fruit for decades in French Canada, many of whom went to prison … Just as the widow who gave her mite may be reckoned to have given more than many multi-millionaires, so, I suspect, some ministers in Japan, or Yorkshire, will receive greater praise on that last day than those who served faithfully in a corner of the world where there was more fruit.”

What should the government do?

Romans 13:1-7 1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed.

Questions

1. Who must “be subject to the governing authorities” (v. 1)?

2. Where does the government’s authority come from (v. 1)?

3. The government is “the servant of God” to do… what (v. 4)?

4. How should the government’s work be paid for (v. 6)?

Answers

1. Everyone must obey the government, because…

2. … the government’s authority comes from God.

3. The government must serve God – it can’t do whatever it wants; rather, it exists to carry out God’s wrath against wrongdoers.

• Internal wrongdoers (criminals within the country)
• External wrongdoers (military invaders from outside the country)

4. Everyone must pay for the government’s work through taxation.

A (partial) list of UK government departments

Draw a circle around any of these departments which might conceivably be necessary for the government to carry out its God-given task of carrying out “God’s wrath against evildoers” (i.e. punishing criminals, defending the nation).

• Her Majesty’s Treasury
• The Charity Commission
• The Crown Prosecution Service
• The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
• The Department for Culture, Media and Sport
• The Department for Education
• The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
• The Department for International Development
• The Department for Transport
• The Department for Work and Pensions
• The Department of Energy and Climate Change
• The Department of Health
• The Food Standards Agency
• The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
• The Forestry Commission
• The Government Equalities Office
• The Home Office
• The Ministry of Defence
• The Ministry of Justice
• The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills
• The Office of Fair Trading
• The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
• The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation
• The Office of Rail Regulation
• The Ordnance Survey
• The Serious Fraud Office
• The Water Services Regulation Authority

The fifth in a series of interactive sessions in Forum on the subject of Authority and Responsibility. The handout is available here.

At times this comic figure will make you laugh. And of course it’s a caricature – there’s no one in the world quite like this. But in most of us we’ll find some of these traits, if we look hard enough. And look we must, because the Sluggard is, in the end, a figure of tragedy. He’s pitiful, sad, pathetic.

Four characteristics of the Sluggard from Proverbs 26:13-16:

1. Sluggards make excuses (v. 13)
2. Sluggards rarely start a job (v. 14)
3. Sluggards never finish a job (v. 15)
4. Sluggards won’t listen (v. 16)

Listen here.

v17 Whoever speaks the truth ['emunah] gives honest evidence, but a false [shekar] witness utters deceit.

v22  Lying [shekar] lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully ['emunah] are his delight.

v23 A prudent ['arum] man conceals [koseh] knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly ['ewil].

The word order of ‘arum and koseh is reversed in the Hebrew text of v. 16, so that the chiasm looks like this:

fool ['ewil]

ignores [koseh]

prudent ['arum]

truth ['emunah]

false [shekar]

Lying [shekar]

faithfully ['emunah]

prudent ['arum]

conceals [koseh]

folly ['ewil]

With thanks to Bruce Waltke, Proverbs (NICOT), p. 533.

• “Purity of Worship,” in Hold Fast Your Confession: Studies in Church Principles, ed. Donald Macleod (Edinburgh, Knox Press)
• The Free Church of Scotland
• Brian Schwertley,”A Brief Examination of Exclusive Psalmody”
• G. I. Williamson, “The Singing of Psalms in the Worship of God”
• John Murray, “Minority Report of the Committee on Song in the Public Worship of God Submitted to the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church”
• exclusivepsalmody.com
• W. I. Wishart, The Psalms the Divinely Authorized and Exclusive Manual of Praise
• Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion

This is not a view I hold. But I know some folks who do, and it’s as well to know what they’re likely to have been reading.

Here’s an outline of the topics and speakers:

Adam in the OT (David Green)

Adam in the NT (Lane Tipton)

Adam in systematic theology (Lane Tipton)

Adam in covenant theology (Garry Williams)

Adam and original sin (Steve Jeffery)

Preaching Adam to Adam’s race (Michael McClenahan)

Exodus 1:15-21 The Israelite midwives lied to Pharaoh

Joshua 2; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25 Rahab hid the spies and lied to the Jericho troops

Judges 4:18 Jael deceived Sisera

1 Samuel 16:1-5 Samuel deceived Saul about the purpose of his mission

1 Samuel 19:12-17 Michal deceived and lied to Saul’s messengers, saying that David was ill

1 Samuel 20:6 David tells Jonathan to lie to Saul

1 Samuel 21:13 David deceived Achich King of Gath into believing he is mad

1 Samuel 27:10 David lied to Achish about his raids

2 Samuel 5:22-25 David and his troops deceived the Philistines in battle

2 Samuel 14:34 David urged Hushai the Archite to deceive Absalom

2 Samuel 17:19-20 A woman deceived and lied to Absalom’s men

1 Kings 22:19-23 God sent a lying spirit to Ahab

2 Kings 6:14-20 Elijah misled the Syrian troops

Jeremiah 38:24-28 Jeremiah lied to the officials

Luke 24:28 Jesus misled his disciples by acting as if he was going farther

2 Thessalonians 2:11 God sends a powerful delusion so that his enemies will believe a lie

Read the review, view sample chapters and buy the book here.

The third in a series of interactive sessions in Forum on the subject of Authority and Responsibility.

• The M’Cheyne Bible-in-a-year plan
• YouVersion
• David Field’s online audio Bible, now also online at Believers Resource

“The Lord’s Day is for visiting the sick. It is for welcoming strangers, especially internationals. It is for helping people worship in the nursing home. It is for hosting the homeless to dinner. It is for giving fatherly care to orphans. It is for taking time to counsel friends who need encouragement. It is a day for giving all the service to God that we are unable to give the rest of the week. In addition to giving us a good day for rest and worship, the Lord has also given us a great day for the gospel – not just for preaching it, but also practicing it through loving deeds of mercy.” (Luke, p. 252)

“What determines that a husband or wife who is not a believer is made holy is ‘the willingness of the unbeliever to continue the relationship’ which ‘has had a decisive influence on his or her behaviour.’” In such a case, “The lifestyle of the Christian partner cannot but affect the ethos and to some extent the values and lifestyle of the home, whether this be the husband or the wife. The spouse’s example, witness, prayer, and living out the world make the spouse (and the children) in this sense holy.”

Thiselton thereby gives the appropriate weight to the potentially compelling witness of a Christian spouse, without making nonsense of the need for the unbelieving spouse to come to personal faith in Jesus (cf. v. 16).

More could be said, I think, on the subject of the children mentioned later in v. 14. But insofar as it goes, this much is helpful.

“We who are strong have an obligation to bear with [bastazein] the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbour for his good, to build him up. 3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.’ 4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”

• “It is unlikely that bastazein means ‘endure’ here.” Presumably is doesn’t mean “bear with” either. For “Paul is requiring from the strong something much more positive than that they should tolerate the weaknesses of the weak,” which by itself might “involve putting a certain pressure upon the weak” or even harbouring “an attitude of superiority and condescension” toward them.
• Rather, bastazein means “carry,” as it does in the vast majority of other NT occurrences. This certainly fits the present context. For (and here Cranfield is superb) “What is required is that the strong should actually help the weak by taking something of the weight of the burden which they have to carry off their shoulders on to their own.” The strong are “to help to carry the infirmities, disabilities, embarrassments and encumbrances of their brothers who are having to live without that inner freedom which they themselves enjoy. Their response to this obligation will be a test of the reality of their faith.”
• “This helping to carry the burden of the infirmities which weigh the weak down will involve not pleasing oneself.”
• On the phrase “for his good, to build him up” [eis to agathos pros oikodomen], Cranfield writes, “The neighbour is very likely to be ready to be pleased by flattery and by the condonement of his wrong-doing,” which will hardly tend to his good. Instead, therefore, “the pleasing of the neighbour which is here commanded … has regard to his true good, to his salvation … which is directed owards his edification … no mere man-pleasing but [with] regard to God.”
• “Paul appeals to the example of Christ” in the phrase “for Christ did not please himself” – a statement which “sums up with eloquent reticence both the character of the incarnation and the meaning of Christ’s earthly life.”
• A surprise in v. 3 – Paul appeals not to the life of Christ but to the OT, quoting from Ps 69:9, where the righteous sufferer (Christ, in Rom 15) addresses God, declaring that men’s hostility towards their Maker has now been directed at their Saviour. Christ suffered this intense hostility from men voluntarily; how much more should we be ready to undergo willingly the comparatively trivial trial of “renouncing our self-gratification” in such matters as food, drink and special days “for the sake of our brothers for whom He suffered so much.”

Jesus apparently thought things should be the other way round.

This uncertainty could easily have been resolve had Luke wished. I suggest therefore that the ambiguity is deliberate. It serves to underscore the precariousness of the Pharisees’ alienation from Jesus by compounding their predicament with uncertainty. And if there’s one thing worse than alienation in a relationship, it’s alienation compounded with uncertainty.

Charles Cranfield: “Paul is enjoining … a friendly and unselfconscious association both with ordinary unimportant people and with the outcasts of society that is free from any suggestion of patronizing or condescension … it is always a sign of the worldliness of the church then its ‘leaders’ no longer associate as readily and freely with humble people both inside and outside the church as with those who feel socially superior.” (Romans, ICC, p. 644.)

Epictetus: “If I were a nightingale, I would do what is proper for a nightingale; If I were a swan, I would do what is proper for a swan. In fact I am logicos, so I must praise God.”

Cranfield, Romans (ICC), p. 602.

So far in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’ve covered some introductory material, the doctrine of revelation and the doctrine of God. We’re moving on in session 11 to the next major topic: the doctrine of creation.

We begin with the creation of man. Here’s the plan:

• First, we’ll be looking (with the help of Gordon J. Wenham’s commentary on Genesis) at what Genesis 1 means when it says man was created “in the image of God.”
• Second, we’ll be continuing to work through Calvin’s Institutes, turning to I.xv (1:183-196), the discussion of “Human Nature as Created.”
• Finally, we’ll be looking at the chapter on “Human Nature” in the second volume of Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (chapter 12).

Questions for reflection

i. What do you think it means to say that man was created “in the image of God”?

ii. Does fallen man bear the image of God?

iii. What is the human soul?

Study question on Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, pp. 29-32

1. What meanings have been suggested for “image” and “likeness” in Genesis 1:26-27? What do you think of the various options?

Study questions on John Calvin, Institutes, I.xv (1:183-196)

2. What does Calvin mean when he says, “This knowledge of ourselves is twofold” (I.xv.1)? How does Calvin explain what he is setting out to do in this chapter?

For reflection: How would Calvin respond to the statement, “I’m homosexual – and that’s just the way that God made me”?

3. How does Calvin describe “the soul” (I.xv.2)? What two reasons does Calvin give for thinking that there is in man something “separate from the body” (I.xv.2)?

4. What does Calvin think is meant by “image” and “likeness” in Genesis 1:26-27 (I.xv.3)?

5. How is the image of God in man most clearly seen (I.xv.4)?

6. What is “the delusion of the Manichees” concerning the soul (I.xv.5)? What is wrong with the Manichean view?

For reflection: Can you think of any biblical text(s) that might at first glace seem to support the Manichees’s view?

7. According to Calvin, what “faculties” (i.e. capacities) does the soul possess (I.xv.6-7)?

8. What kind of freedom does Calvin believe Adam had before the fall (I.xv.8)?

Study questions on Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 2, ch 12 (pp. 530-562)

9. What does Scripture say about man’s created nature, and where does it say it (pp. 531-533)?

10. What arguments does Bavinck adduce against the theory of naturalistic evolution (pp. 536-539)?

11. What are the key features of “Roman Catholic Supernaturalism” (pp. 539-542)? What are its shortcomings (pp. 542-548)?

12. Why did the Reformers reject the Roman Catholic view of the divine image? What alternative(s) did they propose (pp. 548-554)?

13. In what five ways does Bavinck flesh out his conviction that “the whole person is the image of God” (p. 555; cf. pp. 556-562)?

In session 26 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’re continuing our study of Covenant Theology with the help of O. Palmer Robertson’s book, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). You’ll recall from the previous sessions 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.

We’ve looked in previous sessions at the theme of the divine covenants in general terms, and then at some specific biblical covenants, beginning with the so-called “Covenant of Creation,” made with Adam before the fall, and then looking at God’s covenant with Abraham. We continue today where we left off, looking at the seal of the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant, before working through Robertson’s critique of dispensationalism.

As ever, if you’re pressed for time omit the questions marked with a *.

Questions for reflection

i. “The Mosaic Covenant was an external covenant requiring external obedience; the New covenant is an internal covenant requiring – and indeed providing – transformation of heart.” Do you agree?

ii. Can a Christian be saved without being baptised? Explain your answer?

iii. Explain what is going on Exodus 3:24-26. Does this have any implications for your answer to the previous question?

iv. To whom should baptism be administered? Why?

Study questions

We begin in chapter 8, still looking at the Abrahamic covenant, but focussing on the seal of the Abrahamic covenant: the sign of circumcision.

1. “Far from being an optional aspect of the covenantal bond, the seal is the covenant” (p. 148). What does Robertson mean by this?

For reflection: What light does your answer to the above question shed on Ex 2:24-26?

2. What are the five points identified by Robertson which highlight “the import of circumcision as originally instituted for Abraham” (pp. 150-152)? Do any of these points surprise you?

3. “This absolute openness to the incorporation of Gentiles into the community of Israel has far-reaching significance affecting the interpretation of massive portions of Old and New Testaments” (p. 154). Why?

4. What do you think of the following statements from Robertson? In particular, is there a tension with his previous claim that “the seal is the covenant” (p. 148)?

• “The circumcision symbol of the old covenant has no value whatsoever unless it be joined with the true righteousness which it represents” (p. 160)
• “The symbol of circumcision under the old covenant is not the thing which makes a man acceptable to God. Only the true circumcision of the heart by the Spirit accomplishes the cleansing which is sufficient to make a man acceptable to God” (p. 161).

5. Robertson argues that “circumcision under the old covenant is replaced by baptism under the new covenant” (p. 162). What do you think of the argument as Robertson develops it on pp. 162-166?

Chapter 10 discusses the Mosaic covenant. After some opening remarks about dating based on alleged parallels with Hittite treaties (pp. 168-169), Robertson moves on to the theological significance of the Mosaic Covenant (from p. 170 onward).

6. “Whatever concept of law may be advanced [concerning the Mosaic era], it must at all times remain subservient to the broader concept of covenant” (p. 171). What does this mean? Why does it matter?

7. How does Robertson describe “the distinctiveness of the Mosaic covenant” on pp. 172-173?

For reflection: Do you agree with Robertson’s characterisation of the Mosaic covenant here? You might find the following texts helpful as you consider this question:

• Deuteronomy 6:4-6
• Deuteronomy 30:14
• Psalm 37:31
• Psalm 40:8
• Psalm 119:11

(Note: Robertson himself seems aware of some problems in his argument here – see footnote 13 on p. 190. It isn’t clear, however, that he manages to resolve them.)

Robertson tackles head-on what he calls the “difficult question” of whether “the covenant of law [is] still significance for participants in the new covenant” (p. 178).

8. “The Christian does not live under an externalized ministration of law engraved on stone tablets … he no longer relates to that law as an impersonal code standing outside himself” (pp. 182-183). What do you think of this statement?

9. How does Robertson believe that Jeremiah 31:33-34 supports his argument (p. 190-191)? Do you agree with him?

Chapter 11 is an extended critique of dispensationalism. If you’ve never heard of dispensationalism, you’re about to find out how lucky you are (as Calvin used to say) to have been spared the experience.

10. Why, according to Robertson’s brief comments on p. 201, is “covenant” a significant framework through which to understand biblical revelation?

11. What alternative system of structuring biblical revelation does Robertson interact with? What caveats does he note?

12. How do the earlier dispensational treatments of Gen 1-3 differ from the later developments (pp. 204-206)?

13. What crucial passage does dispensationalism misunderstand in its elaboration of “the dispensation of conscience”? What are the effects of this misunderstanding (pp. 206-208)?

14. “The treatment of the ‘covenant’ with Noah [‘the dispensation of human government’] in dispensational thinking may be characterized as secularistic rather than redemptive-historical” (p. 210). What exegetical factors lead dispensationalism towards this way of thinking?

15. What “basic dualism” (p. 212) in dispensational thinking is manifested in their treatment of the covenant with Abraham? How does it arise? What “basic distinction” is “involved in God’s treatment of his elect people” (p. 214)?

16. What misunderstanding leads dispensationalists to postulate a “Palestinian covenant” (pp. 217-218)?

17. What is Robertson’s “focal point of disagreement with dispensationalism” (p. 220) concerning the Davidic covenant? What evidence does he adduce to establish his view (pp. 220-221)?

18. How do dispensationalists believe Jesus responded to the Jewish rejection of his kingship? How did Jesus actually respond (p. 224)?

19. What implications does Robertson believe that dispensationalist thinking has for understanding Jesus’ resurrection (pp. 225-227)?

20. “The present age is not a ‘parenthesis’ unforeseen by the prophets of old” (p. 227). Why do dispensationalists disagree?

Summary of Bahnsen’s position:

The author insists that the whole Old Testament civil law, including the penalty structure (execution for adultery and so on) is binding up­on present-day civil governments.

The “ceremonial law” (e.g. an­imal sacrifices) is no longer literally binding.

Church and state were dis­tinct even during the Old Testament period (this is the distinction be­tween priestly and kingly offices).

This position does not require that the state enforce religious conver­sion, nor does it give civil officials power over the Church.

The civil government must, how­ever, carry out its distinctive func­tions under the authority of Bibli­cal law.

Positive points:

On the whole the book is well organized and easy to read; it is easy to skip cer­tain sections for future reference and to pick up the train of argu­ment later on.

His is the most thorough and cogent defense of [this] position so far pub­lished.

This book performs a great ser­vice. It takes the whole controversy out of the “shouting” stage and pre­sents solid arguments which must be soberly discussed. The work shows impressive exegetical and logical skill. Bahnsen here has established himself as one of the very best younger theologians of our time.

For those who disagree with Bahn­sen’s position—well, the ball is in their court; they must come up with an answer.

Criticisms:

The book is somewhat wordy; Bahnsen sometimes engages in overkill by multiplying references and arguments. At times he lapses into language unintelligible to those not trained in philosophy.

I would suggest that Bahnsen con­front more directly the reason why many people consistently resist the continuing use of these civil laws distinctive to the Mosaic covenant, namely that the Mosaic covenant, in contrast with previous covenants and with the New Covenant, identifies the kingdom of God with a specific earthly political unit. The unique­ness of that Old Testament theoc­racy needs closer examination.

“Laws” in the sense of “rules that must be obeyed” (as distinct from “the Law of Moses”) are inescapable in Christian ethics, and indeed in the Christian life generally. The key question is not “Law or no law?” but rather, “Which law should we follow?” or perhaps better, “Whose law should we follow?”

There are three possible answers to this question: (1) God’s law; (2) My law; (3) Someone else’s law. Every Christian must of course be committed to the first of these – God’s law, another name for which is theonomy (theos = God; nomos = law). Every Christian, therefore, is a theonomist.

This position must be distinguished from another possible theological viewpoint that also bears the name “theonomy”. This is the position espoused by Greg L. Bahnsen, James B. Jordan, Gary North, Rousas J. Rushdoony and others, who at various times during their ministries have been described as theonomists. These men believe(d) not only that all Christians are required to obey God’s law, but also that this law has a certain content.

Clearly, one could be committed to the view that Christians are required to obey God’s law (theonomy) while disagreeing with these theonomists about what that actually entails. In fact, these men all held rather different views about the particular shape of God’s law. This only serves to underline further the crucial point: every Christian is (or should be) a theonomist, although as we study the Scriptures we may reach different conclusions about precisely what the relevant nomoi are.

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

1. Write brief notes about how Jesus’ insistence that he did not come to abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17-20) is consistent with Paul’s statement that Jesus has abolished the Law (Ephesians 2:14-16).

You might find it helpful to reflect on the following sub-questions (among others):

• What does “abolish” mean in each context?
• What “Law” is being referred to in each context?
• What purpose is served by the non-abolition / abolition in each context?

The following commentaries and other secondary works represent a variety of different perspectives, and may be helpful:

• Calvin’s commentaries on the relevant texts
• D. A. Carson, Matthew (Expositor’s Bible Commentary)
• Peter T. O’Brien, Ephesians (PNTC)
• Chapter 2 of Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics
• Other standard Reformed texts (Turretin, Institutes; Calvin, Institutes; etc.)

If you are unable to answer these questions comprehensively or with certainty, try at least to clarify (1) the questions that would need to be addressed; and (2) some possible answers that might be given.

• “Puritans were ‘the hotter sort of Protestants’” (p. 51). Now that’s the right kind of heat.
• “The Puritans, conservative or radical, followed a different faith to the Quakers, and this difference resulted from opposing views on Word and Spirit” (p. 53). “Both Puritans and Quakers” recognised these “deep theological differences” (p. 53).
• Archbishop Ussher (the hitherto-unknown standup comic): “Nothing is so familiar nowadays … as to father upon Antichrist whatsoever in church matters we do not find to sort with our own humours” (p. 53).
• “Many Quakers came from a Puritan background” (p. 55).
• The fundamental disagreement: “The Puritans believed that God spoke through the Bible, and the Quakers believed that God spoke immediately, and not through the Bible” (p. 55).
• “The use [by Quakers] of biblical words and phrases … concealed the wide gap between Puritan faith and Quaker experience … the Quaker message was a radical departure from Puritan faith” (p. 58).
• Luther (another secret comedian) would not believe the Zwickau prophets even if “they had swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all” (p. 59).
• Section 3 – the worrying consequences of Quaker teaching.
• The puritan/Quaker differences may have originated in differences among the Reformers, exemplified by the differences between Zwingli and Luther (p. 84):
  • Zwingli: the Bible is a sign of the truth that God communicates by his Spirit;
  • Luther: the Bible is the means God uses to communicate his truth.
• “Zwingli wants to refute an ex opere operato view of preaching but in doing so runs the danger of failing to recognise that the Bible is God’s words ‘intrinsically as well as instrumentally,’ in the useful phrase of J. I. Packer” (p. 85).
• “Calvin asserts both the efficacy of the external Spirit-inspired Word and the necessity for the internal word and testimony of the Spirit. In this he honours the ‘means’ which God uses, Bible and preacher, as well as pointing to our own powerlessness and our dependence on God’s work in our hearts, minds, and lives” (p. 85).
• A final thought: It’s one thing to ask the question, “Which words can we trust?” It’s another thing to ask the question, “Which words have the power to change us?” I’m inclined to think that the second question is at least as important, perhaps sometimes more important, as the first.

28 And leaving everything and rising, he followed him.

29 And Levi made a great banquet for him in his house, and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and others who were with them, sitting at the table.

30 And the Pharisees and their Scribes grumbled to his disciples, saying, “Why with tax collectors and sinners does he eat and drink?”

31 And answering Jesus said to them, “The healthy have no need for a doctor, but the sick.

32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

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.

Speaker: Steve Jeffery

Speaker: Steve Jeffery

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.

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.

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?

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.

“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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

“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)

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)?

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?

“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.

“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)

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.

“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.

• “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)

(Apologies for the nasty mobile phone interference towards the end.)

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.

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

Jeremiah 23:1–6

“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. 2 Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD. 3 Then I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. 4 I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, declares the LORD.

5 “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. 6 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.’”

Here Jeremiah condemns those who ruled Israel in his day – the “shepherds” (v. 2) of Israel – who cared nothing for the people of God, but were concerned only for themselves. The LORD promises to punish them “for their evil deeds” (v. 2), and to provide a shepherd “who will care for them” (v. 4). This promise is fulfilled with the coming of “a righteous Branch” who will “reign as king and deal wisely” (v. 5), in whom the LORD himself will be present, for his name will be, “the LORD is our righteousness” (v. 6).

Micah 5:1-5a

1 Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek. 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 origin is from of old, from ancient days. 3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel. 4 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. 5 And he shall be their peace.

Like Jeremiah, Micah also looks forward to One will ” be ruler in Israel” (v. 2). This great King shall come from a surprising place: “Bethlehem Ephrathah” (v. 2), an insignificant little town which would nonetheless be the birthplace of Israel’s Messiah, the one who will bring “peace” (v. 5).

Zephaniah 3:14-20

14 Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem! 15 The LORD has taken away the judgments against you; he has cleared away your enemies. The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst; you shall never again fear evil. 16 On that day it shall be said to Jerusalem: “Fear not, O Zion; let not your hands grow weak. 17 The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing. 18 I will gather those of you who mourn for the festival, so that you will no longer suffer reproach. 19 Behold, at that time I will deal with all your oppressors. And I will save the lame and gather the outcast, and I will change their shame into praise and renown in all the earth. 20 At that time I will bring you in, at the time when I gather you together; for I will make you renowned and praised among all the peoples of the earth, when I restore your fortunes before your eyes,” says the LORD.

Zephaniah looks forward with great joy to the coming of the King: “Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem!” (v. 14). The LORD is coming in the person of Christ as “a mighty one who will save” (v. 17), who will gather the mourners, the lame, and the outcast (vv. 18-19), and will punish those who oppress the weak (v. 19). When the promised King comes, all the world will see how he has restored his people (v. 20).

Haggai 2:1-9

1 In the seventh month, on the twenty-first day of the month, the word of the LORD came by the hand of Haggai the prophet, 2 “Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to all the remnant of the people, and say, 3 ‘Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? How do you see it now? Is it not as nothing in your eyes? 4 Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, declares the LORD. Be strong, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of the land, declares the LORD. Work, for I am with you, declares the LORD of hosts, 5 according to the covenant that I made with you when you came out of Egypt. My Spirit remains in your midst. Fear not. 6 For 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.  7 And 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.  8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the LORD of hosts. 9 The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the LORD of hosts.’”

Haggai prophesied during the construction of the Temple after Israel’s return from exile – a task that was delayed because the people of God allowed themselves to become pre-occupied with their own houses rather than the house of God. Even when the Temple was finally constructed, it wasn’t very impressive – it was “as nothing in [the] eyes” of those “who saw … its former glory” (v. 3). Yet “in a little while” (v. 6), the LORD promises to “shake the heavens and the earth” and fill his house with greater glory than the earth has ever seen. And then, when the glory of the LORD has been seen in the Son, the world will know “peace” (v. 9).

First, in 5:1, “the crowd was pressing in on Jesus to hear the word of God.”

Second, in 23:23, the crowd “insistently demanded that he be crucified.”

Thus with this one word Luke tells the story of the fickleness of humanity.

Don’t end your story end in Luke 23:23.

Here are a few of the salient highlights:

• The standard depictions of “the New England Puritans” included “killjoy and prude.” But “New England’s Puritans were by no means allergic to fun.”
• On drinking, “While hard alcohol was frowned upon, beer and wine were celebrated as gifts from above.”
• On the other alleged Puritan taboo, “Another gift from above was sex, which New England Puritans liked just about as much as the rest of us (or more). They sought to channel sexual desire into the institution of marriage, but inside marriage they let their lusts run free.”
• This high view of sex combined with their high view of church authority to produce some interesting moments around the Lord’s Table: “New England’s Puritans disciplined church members who refused to have sex with their wives, including one James Mattock, excommunicated from his church in Boston in 1640 because he ‘denied conjugal fellowship unto his wife’ for two years.”
• In summary, “After the eating and drinking was done, plenty of Puritans thanked God for saving them from celibacy.”

HT: Joel Garver

10 I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.

11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.

13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.

17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit. 18 I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.

19 And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

“Explain and evaluate the following arguments against copyright: 1. Copying is not theft because it does not deprive the original owner of his property. 2. Laws against copying are illegitimate because they wrongly presuppose that a vendor may restrict all future owners.”

I’m looking forward to hearing the answer, especially because I think these are the anti-copyright arguments which are both (a) most central to the anti-copyright case (cf. Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property); and (b) most likely to be susceptible to a biblical critique, especially when you take the OT case laws seriously (cf. Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, J. B. Jordan).

Introduction

We’re continuing with Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics in session 8 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, turning this time to the subject of God’s incommunicable attributes in volume 2, chapter 4 (pp. 148-177). As you’ll have noticed last time, Bavinck writes pretty densely. But you will also have found that the time you spent chewing it over was very worthwhile. If you want candy floss, look elsewhere. But if you want a full roast dinner with all the trimmings, you’ve come to the right place.

Here are a few ideas to help you follow the thread of what Bavinck is saying:

• The questions have been divided up into sections corresponding with the major section headings in the chapter. There are also some brief summaries along the way to help you keep track of what Bavinck is saying.
• The italic summary of the chapter on pp. 148-149, though not written by Bavinck himself, is nonetheless very helpful. Indeed, you might find it worth coming back to this as you read through the chapter, to keep the big picture in your mind.
• If you find Bavinck’s writing a bit unmanageable, try breaking it down a little. You’ve got 4 hours to read 29 pages, and there are 9 questions below. So, every 25 minutes or so, you want to be answering one question and covering (on average) about 3 pages of reading.

On this occasion, more of the questions for reflection are scattered throughout the study questions. As ever, they’re designed to encourage you to reflect more broadly on the issues under consideration.

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

Questions for reflection

i. “I don’t really like ‘theology’. It just makes everything complicated, and it’s always full of long words and obscure Latin. I just want to know God better and love him more.” Discuss.

Study questions

Aseity / Independence (pp. 149-153)

Aseity is sometimes called independence. To say that God possesses aseity means that God is not dependent for his existence on anything or anyone else. He causes himself to exist; he is self-caused.

One important text for the doctrine of divine aseity is Exodus 3:14-15. Read Exodus 3:7-15 to remind yourself of the context, and then consider the following question:

For reflection: Why might the doctrine of divine aseity be significant for Moses on Exodus 3?

1. What is significant about the name YHWH as it is revealed in Exodus 3:14-15 (p. 150)? How does Bavinck explain God’s aseity, or independence, on p. 151?

For reflection: What might be some of the practical and/or pastoral implications of God’s aseity (see especially p. 150)?

2. On p. 152, Bavinck says that “by this perfection [i.e. aseity] he [i.e. God] is at once essentially and absolutely distinct from all creatures.” But then a few lines later he says, “there is nevertheless a weak analogy in all creatures also of this perfection of God.” What does Bavinck mean by these two statements? How can they fit together?

Immutability (pp. 153-159)

Immutability means “unchanging-ness.” To say that God possesses immutability means that “God is and remains the same” (p. 153).

3. “At first blush, this immutability seems to have little support in Scripture” (p. 153). What does Bavinck mean by this? What kind of biblical evidence does he mention?

4. “Amid all this alteration God is and always remains the same” (p. 153). What does Bavinck mean by this? What biblical evidence does he mention (p. 153)?

On pp. 154-157 Bavinck discusses various ways in which the doctrine of divine immutability has been understood historically by philosophers and theologians. If you’re pressed for time (or a bit dazed by the detail!) then skip this section and pick up again on p. 158.

On p. 158 Bavinck sets out an important argument in support of divine immutability.

*5. “The idea of God itself implies immutability” (p. 158). What does Bavinck mean by this?

In the next paragraph on p. 158, Bavinck attempts to avoid a common misunderstanding of divine immutability.

*6. Immutability “should not be confused with monotonous sameness or rigid immobility” (p. 158). Why might someone think of immutability in these terms? How, according to Bavinck, should we think of God’s immutability?

For reflection: Which of these statements is a better summary of God’s immutability? Why?

• “God is immutable in the way that Mount Everest is immutable.”
• “God is immutable in the way that Niagara Falls is immutable.”

*For reflection: Can you think of any pastoral implications of the doctrine of divine immutability? You might find it helpful to look at Psalm 33, especially vv. 10-12.

Infinity (pp. 159-170)

Bavinck discusses God’s infinity in general terms on pp. 159-160, before considering God’s eternity (pp. 160-164) and omnipresence (pp. 164-170) in turn.

To say that God is infinite means that “he is not limited by anything finite or creaturely”; that “in him every virtue is present in an absolute degree” (p. 160).

Both eternity and omnipresence are related to the previous attribute, immutability (unchanging-ness). Eternal means “unchanging with regard to time”; omnipresent means “unchanging with regard to space”.

7. Highlight some of the most helpful ways in which Bavinck describes the concept of God’s eternity on pp. 162-163.

8. How does Scripture describe God’s omnipresence (pp. 164-165)?

Bavinck’s discussion of God’s omnipresence quickly becomes rather complex on pp. 165-169, so don’t worry too much if you can’t really follow it. However, the beginning and end of the section are a little easier to follow, and contain some thought-provoking material.

For reflection: What might be some of the pastoral implications of God’s omnipresence? You might want to look at the quote from Augustine on p. 170.

Unity

Bavinck distinguishes two aspects of God’s unity (i.e. oneness), namely singularity and simplicity.

God’s singularity is a statement about the number of divine beings that exist. Divine singularity means that there is only one God.

God’s simplicity is a statement about the nature of this one divine being. Divine simplicity means that every attribute of God is identical with every other attribute of God and also with the essence of God itself.

Singularity is discussed in this section (headed Unity); simplicity is discussed in the next section.

*9. How is the doctrine of God’s unity related to the subject of idolatry (pp. 170-171)?

Simplicity

Before you proceed, just remind yourself briefly of the definition of divine simplicity, above.

10. Bavinck uses an elegant argument for divine simplicity at the bottom of p. 173. Can you put it in your own words?

Bavinck discusses the historical development of the doctrine of divine simplicity on pp. 174-175. Don’t worry too much about this.

On pp. 176-177 Bavinck talks a little more about the doctrine of divine simplicity and its implications.

*11. “In the case of creatures … there is a difference between existing, being, living, knowing, willing, acting and so on” (p. 176). What does this mean?

For reflection: Try to answer the following questions. Why might these questions be pastorally important?

• Could a human being exist without being loving?
• Could God exist without being loving?

On the subject of who pays how much tax, “Some 60% of households are net recipients from the Treasury … The top 10% of households contribute, on average, five times more than they get back … The top 1% of earners – just 300,000 people – pay 27% of all income tax.”

On the subject of what we pay for, “In 2010-11, we spent more paying interest on our national debt than we did defending the realm.” That’s alarming, since defending the realm is one of the few activities of our government that the Bible actually says they should be doing.

On the subject of debt and deficits, “Deficits have been a feature of British political life for decades. In the early 1990s, for instance, John Major’s Conservative government ran up a deficit of more than £50bn, or £77bn in today’s money. The deficit which the coalition inherited is much bigger.” What – we owe money? Who knew?

On the subject of who’s to blame for the mess, “For much of the last 30 years, our politicians have promised higher spending, and lower taxes – and we’ve encouraged them.” Correct. The reason our rulers have spent years telling us lies about their ability to create wealth ex nihilo is that we have elected precisely those rulers misguided enough to do so.

But now those lies are finally coming home to roost in a big way – in the form of massive public debt. And the Great British Public is turning its ire on… you guessed it… the government. It’s a bit like Israel blaming a famine on Baal.

Here’s the heart of the problem: our rulers are only people, just like us. They’re not God. So they can print fivers, but they can’t produce real wealth out of thin air. By insisting that they attempt the impossible, we have turned the ordinary men and women who rule us into idols, and now we’re surprised that they can’t save us. Whenever you turn a created thing into an idol, you ruin it.

God has given us the rulers we deserve. We have sown the wind, and now we will reap the whirlwind.

Here are the exercises to be completed in the week following the fifth tutorial in the Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. Write brief notes on 1 Corinthians 8-10 (focussing particularly on chapters 8 and 10) to explain how Paul’s example and teaching exemplify the proper role of the conscience in ethical reflection. Some issues to bear in mind may include (but may not be limited to) the following:

• the importance of following one’s conscience;
• the importance of educating one’s conscience;
• the distinction between material sin and formal sin;
• ignorance as a modifier of culpability;
• the distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance;
• the distinction between natural evil and moral evil;
• what one should do in cases of ethical uncertainty;
• whether one should seek to compel someone else to act against their conscience;
• whether, how, and when one should seek to educate another person’s conscience.

Note: I’m not looking for a detailed essay here. Something more conversational in style or a series of bullet points would be fine.

• “The passage is about overwhelming wealth … too many fish [for the nets to contain] … [Thus] the text provides us with something of an unspoken economic test for the fishermen. Satan has just tested Jesus with the temptation of instant and immense wealth – all the kingdoms of the world, food, and safety. But Jesus resisted instant wealth, Then Jesus actually creates instant wealth in front of these very poor fishermen … This poses a subtle dilemma the fishermen have to respond to.” The astonishing thing, then, is that they “leave everything” (v.11) and follow him.
• Douglas Jones thinks that the sin lying behind Peter’s confession “I am a sinful man” (v. 8) was his (previous, and now abandoned) thirst for mammon, manifested in his endless pursuit of wealth – “we toiled all night” (v. 5). Possible, I guess, but I’m not convinced. Toiling all night isn’t a problem, especially if you’ve caught nothing.

1. Jesus could come back at any time.
2. Thought Jesus could not come at any time, nonetheless when he does come his coming will be unexpected.

Unfortunately, these statements are often conflated in people’s minds, resulting in considerable confusion. Note, however, that the Bible’s imagery of a thief in the night, and Jesus’ warnings to be ready, and so on, do not necessarily imply (1). They only require (2).

HT: MF.

Here are the exercises to be completed in the week following the fourth tutorial in the Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

Consider the following situations, in which fear might inclined a person to do something which, if looked at in isolation, we would consider bad:

• A Christian denies the gospel after being threatened with execution if he refuses to worship Allah.
• A man steals his friend’s car keys to prevent his friend driving home after drinking too much alcohol.
• A Missionary-Pastor abandons his church after he and his family receive threats of violence from members of the local community.
• A homeowner hears a burglar downstairs in the dead of night, attacks him and renders him unconscious.
• A 20-stone weightlifter breaks a child’s arm after the child threatens him in the gym.
• A child joins in with playground bullies after being threatened, “Punch the new kid or we’ll punch you.”
• A Christian child joins in with Halloween celebrations at school out of fear of social ostracism.
• A sailor, fearing an impending storm, throws his passengers’ belongings overboard.

State briefly whether the fear provoked by the perceived threat justifies the action performed in each case. If you think that the action would be justified in some circumstances, but not in others, explain the nature of the circumstances that would make the difference.

Then explain what principles you employed to distinguish between the different situations. You may wish to consider (among others) the following factors:

• What kind of evil the agent fears (moral evil or natural evil);
• The degree of active, studied consent involved at the moment the action is performed;
• The credibility of the threat;
• The degree of proportion between the threat and the action taken.

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.

494-6; v1-2

The end of the temple announced

disciple’s enthusiasm, cf. J: ‘T=doomed!’

v1 significant: ‘As Jesus was leaving the Temple’! Cf. Ezekiel, glory of God leaving!

emphatic ou me + 2x aorist subjunctive

497-505

Ctxt in Mk: climax of growing hostility to J (cf. 495)

Importance of OT refs, missed by many modern ppl

Not ‘apocalyptic’

NTW (not RTF): all of Mk 13 wrt AD 70

SoM coming from God to receive authority

‘change of gov’t’

v30 comprehensible!

RTF: v32f – parousia

change of subject: ‘that day’ (singular, cf. prev plural)

uncertain time ref (cf prev certainty)

cf. Mt, parousia explicit

Traditional view: all about parousia. Reasons:

v24-27, cosmic imagery

‘SoM’ / ‘coming with clouds’ = coming to earth, not heaven.

But in 14:26, ppl increasingly accept Dan / heavenly vindication idea. Why not in Mk 13 too?!

505-8; v3-4

Subject = destruction of temple (v3 tauta; sitting opp temple)

v4: 2 parts of question about same subject (unlike Mt 24:3)

thus disciples concerned over (a) time of destruction; and (b) what sign will allow us to prepare for it

Ans (i): v14, 26, 27, esp 30: ‘this generation’

Ans (ii): hint in v28-9: fig tree, buds

v3: mt of olives: messianic connections (11:1)? Ex 11:23, God abandoning the temple

v4. synteilesthai (to be completed) ds not imply parousia reference, contra Mt. Rather, tauta x2 => same referent

in Mt, the vb appears in a specific (eschat.) phrase, unlike here

508-13; v5-8

Josephus: many false semeia in AD30-70

resulting confrontations = foretaste of AD 70 confrontation with Rome

also wars and natural disasters

telos here ds not imply parousia, but completion

è  focus here: disciples mst not be misled by these signs

v6: ‘I Am’ (ego eimi) wrt Messiah, not YHWH (Cf. Mt, ‘messiah’)

many historical examples

Qu: Does throeomai // 2 Th 2:2 hint at parousia reference? (511)

v8: gar, implies further amplification Re: wars etc.

‘birth-pains’ in NT period was a general ref to suffering, not technical term wrt coming of messiah

513-9; v9-13

Interim period: time of proclamation, not passivity

blepete – begins imperatival focus of section. Exhortation.

series of slightly distinct exhortations

v9: direct object of blepete (eautous) personalises and focuses warning

poss progress from Jewish thru Roman persecution?

proclamation concerning Jesus both the cause and the consequence (‘witness to them’) of the opposition

v10: preaching to gentiles b4 temple destroyed

v11: recalls v9 trial scene.

519-30; v14-23

‘When you see’ – introduces more direct answer to question of v4.

‘abomination of desolation’ – reintroduces temple via ctxt of Dan

v17-20 <=> situation leading up to AD 70

Specific historical referent of these events?

(1) profanation of temple; (2) clearly discernible as sign; (3) shortly before Roman seige

v14-16: general 3^rd-person refs: therefore warnings directed toward all Judeans, not jst disciples. (cf. also 17-20)

è potential confusion and debate, but not over main flow of discourse

v14: ‘abomination of desolation’ – Dan.

masc. ptcp => ‘(male) god Zeus?

Once in place, ppl mst leave immediately!

Precise identification of AoD uncertain.

v15-19: wrt horrific war in Judea.

v20: siege of Jer lasted only 5 mths

v21-22: period of war and siege offers more opp’s for false messiahs

historical examples

v23: emphatic hymeis => ‘be warned’!

530-40; v24-31

Key verses for RTF’s distinctive view

So far, a full answer to v4 question has not been given

Outline:

v5-8: false ‘signs’

v9-13: digression: difficulties for disciples during intervening period

v14-22: specific sign: AoD, requiring specific response.

v24: contrastive alla highlights new focus of answer, beyond prev. ‘affliction’

24b-27: heavy dependence on OT prophets

24b-25: cosmic language => climactic changes to existing world order

v26-27: SoM comes: arrival of new world order; SoM sends out angels to gather in elect from all nations.

v28-31: answer to second half of v4 question: signs of approaching fulfilment

v28: fig tree parable – ‘be ready!’

v30: Actual time of events: within ‘this generation’

v32f: peri de – another subject

Key to RTF’s view: understand imagery in light of OT prophecy, not later Xn ‘coming of SoM’ = parousia ideas

v24-5: alla not imply change of subject, just contrast in scale of events

‘in those days’ => explicitly the same era of time as prev events: AD 70

cosmic language // in OT prophets: political changes within world history, wrt divine judgment

Shock: applied here to Jerusalem + temple!

v26: With v27, portrays +ve side of new world – the new thing that will come (cf. -ve in v24-25)

Echo Dan 7:13-14: ‘coming of SoM’ to be enthroned before God. A new king!

SoM = Jesus; in dan, SoM represents ‘saints of most high’; thus J receiving power on behalf of his ppl

How is SoM ‘seen’? What ‘evidence’? Ctxt suggests either 1. destruction of temple; or 2. gathering of ppl of God

-ve and +ve sides of same coin: powerful growth of church / SoM now the supreme authority

v27: sovereignty of SoM shown in gathering the elect

‘angels’? either (a) = ‘messengers’, => Xn missionaries, or (b) angels involved somehow in gathering the elect

v28-29: Back to v4 qu: fig tree illn that abomination of desolation / events of v14-22 are sign SoM’s coming

‘Fig tree’ – common nr Jerusalem, also symbol of Temple’s failure in Mk11

‘it’ (v29) = destruction of temple; ‘these things’ mst be before AD70 to serve as signs of its nearness

v30: ‘this generation’ = only a problem for ppl who get text wrong!

temporal sense required by construction of sentence and by v4 question (‘when?’).

alternative readings of ‘this generation’ don’t work

(a) ‘this gen’ = Jew (Jerome). actually argues in favour of RTF!

(b) ‘this gen’ = ‘that gen’, ie those alive at time of v29, understood as future age

Wrong:   (i) interpretation of v29 argues against it;

(ii) even if RTF wrong on v29, this interpretation would require ‘that gen’, not ‘this gen’!

(b’) ‘this gen’ = human race in general. It never means this; it would be a misleading way to say it!

(c) ‘all these things’ not refer to events described up to v27.

But ‘these things’ refers to v4 qu, hence destruction of temple. This view requires entirely bad interpretation.

v31: Emphasises truth of J’s pronouncement

541-6; v32-7

Peri de => change of subject. ‘That day’ (singular), contrast ‘those days’ (pl) up to v31

Contra NTW, who argues for same subject

Meaning of ‘that day or hour’:

v33-37 themes are parousia-related.

// themes in Mt, where parousia mentioned

But why change the subject here?

theological connection between judgment on Jer and on world (cf. Mt)

Blepete (v33, cf 5, 9,23) – look for true Christ (cf. prev false christs)

v32: Contrast: time of parousia unknown to J; destruction of Temple entirely predictable

v33: Blepete – summons to vigilance, unlike prev ‘cooling of expectation’ (5, 23) and call to prepare for suffering (9)

v37: Broadens perspective to ‘everyone’ – all must ‘watch!’

Further evidence the parousia is in view – relevant beyond immediate hearers

“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

“Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.’” (John 6:35)

No, I’m not joking. Yes, that Wall Street Journal.

Aaron Belz’s article on the charitable work of Pacific Crossroads Church in California contains the following quotation from John Calvin’s commentary on 2 Corinthians, explaining why the Calvinist (and biblical) belief in God’s sovereignty sets us free to be generous to the poor:

“What makes us more close-handed than we ought to be is when we look too carefully, and too far forward, in contemplating the dangers that may occur—when we are excessively cautious and careful—when we calculate too narrowly what we will require during our whole life, or, in fine, how much we lose when the smallest portion is taken away. The man that depends upon the blessing of the Lord has his mind set free from these trammels and has, at the same time, his hands opened for beneficence.”

HT: SJ

• “Jesus, like a priest, ‘laid his hands on every one of them’ and healed them” (p. 78).
• “Jesus’ royal priesthood is grounded in creation, and His goal is to bring about a restoration of creation, a new Eden. … It’s a bit of Eden breaking through. Jesus restores creation person by person” (p. 78).
• “All this kingdom work, all this liberation and restoration, creates a community attaching itself to Jesus” (p. 78). Note v. 42, “the people sought him and came to him and would have kept him from leaving them” – multiple verbal clauses intensifying and emphasising their attachment to their Messiah.
• This is potentially rather significant. The point of Jesus’ redefinition of Israel is that he’s now saying, “If you want to be an Israelite, you need to be attached to me.” The reaction of the people of Capernaum reflects exactly this (correct) instinct. Yet to be attached to Jesus they didn’t need to have him in the body. They needed only to be living within the sphere of his Kingdom. Since they are now living there, Jesus can safely go on to the other towns and preach the good news of the Kingdom there too.
• Jesus’ calling of the first disciples (Simon Peter, James and John, 5:10) at the start of Lk 5 is occasioned by the size of the task that obviously confronts him at the end of Lk 4. “He is only one Son of Man, and the world is a big place. For the kingdom to grow, he needs other royal priests to join him” (p. 79).