Things may go quiet here for a couple of weeks as Claire and I head off on holiday shortly. Pool-side reading includes
Cities of God: Rodney Stark on how the early church conquered Rome as an urban movement.
Pierced for our Transgression: Jeffries, Ovey & Sach on you know what.
He shall have dominion: Kenneth Gentry on why everyone should be a covenantal postmillenialist
So maybe there'll be comments on some of these when we return.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
Through New Eyes 3
In 'Through New Eyes' James Jordan aims to help his readers become re-familiarised with the language and thought forms of the bible. Part 2 focuses on the basic elements of creation. After a chapter on the world in general as God’s house, chapter 5 moves to the Sun, Moon and Stars.
Heavenly Bodies
Jordan’s basic text is Genesis 1:14-18 which describes the heavenly bodies as lights, signs, governors of time, seasons and days. Stemming from their position in the heavenlies and their function as rulers of time and seasons, the heavenly bodies have a symbolic function in the bible as representing angelic and human rulers and authorities (e.g. Job 38:7, Isaiah 14:13).
Following from this, Jordan highlights a popular misinterpretation of several bible passages referring to the sun, moon and stars. Most passages which speak of the shaking/falling/removal of heavenly bodies are interpreted as referring (somewhat, but not entirely literally) to the end of the physical world/collapse of the cosmos. Jordan argues that such passages (especially prevalent in the prophets and in Jesus’ teaching) actually represent the collapse of a nation/ruler/kingdom. If the end of the world is on view it is often “the end of the “world” in a socio-political sense.” Jordan cites several examples, such as Isaiah 13:9-10, which, in context, is clearly about the end of the Babylonian kingdom (Isaiah 13:17).
In this vein, Jordan argues that Revelation 6:12-13 and Matthew 24:29 refer to the events surrounding and following the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Additionally, he suggests that the phrase ‘new heavens and new earth’ can refer to both a transfigured/renewed creation and also a new world order (new people, new rulers, new government).
Applying this imagery to the promise to Abraham (Genesis 15:5), Jordan suggests that the LORD promised that Abraham’s descendants would be ‘like the stars’ i.e. seated in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:6) and given rule over the nations. This would suggest that Romans 4:13 is faithful to the original meaning of the Abrahamic covenant - Abraham's offspring will inherit the world (greek /kosmos/)
Heavenly Bodies
Jordan’s basic text is Genesis 1:14-18 which describes the heavenly bodies as lights, signs, governors of time, seasons and days. Stemming from their position in the heavenlies and their function as rulers of time and seasons, the heavenly bodies have a symbolic function in the bible as representing angelic and human rulers and authorities (e.g. Job 38:7, Isaiah 14:13).
Following from this, Jordan highlights a popular misinterpretation of several bible passages referring to the sun, moon and stars. Most passages which speak of the shaking/falling/removal of heavenly bodies are interpreted as referring (somewhat, but not entirely literally) to the end of the physical world/collapse of the cosmos. Jordan argues that such passages (especially prevalent in the prophets and in Jesus’ teaching) actually represent the collapse of a nation/ruler/kingdom. If the end of the world is on view it is often “the end of the “world” in a socio-political sense.” Jordan cites several examples, such as Isaiah 13:9-10, which, in context, is clearly about the end of the Babylonian kingdom (Isaiah 13:17).
In this vein, Jordan argues that Revelation 6:12-13 and Matthew 24:29 refer to the events surrounding and following the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Additionally, he suggests that the phrase ‘new heavens and new earth’ can refer to both a transfigured/renewed creation and also a new world order (new people, new rulers, new government).
Applying this imagery to the promise to Abraham (Genesis 15:5), Jordan suggests that the LORD promised that Abraham’s descendants would be ‘like the stars’ i.e. seated in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:6) and given rule over the nations. This would suggest that Romans 4:13 is faithful to the original meaning of the Abrahamic covenant - Abraham's offspring will inherit the world (greek /kosmos/)
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Jeremiah 32 and Infant Baptism
Neil Jeffers (who, I understand, leaves Oak Hill today) wrote a good short dissertation in his third year on Jeremiah 32:37-41 and infant baptism, and I've just finished reading it. To understand the relevance, imagine the following (imaginary) conversation between a (reformed) paedobaptist and a (reformed) baptist:
Baptist: Oi, stop baptising babies, where do you get that from in the bible eh?
Paedobaptist: Er, no, I'm not gonna stop. Baptising infants of believers is taught in the bible, so it is.
B: Where?
PB: Well, in that whole covenant thing.
B (since he is a reformed baptist): Covenant? Yeah, I've heard of that. Proceed my good man, how does it establish your bizarre watery practices?!
PB: Well, y'know, that thing about the children of believers being included in the covenant along with their parents, and therefore receiving the covenant sign too - circumcision in the old, baptism in the new.
B (being an amicable fellow): Ah, I see. There's one problem with that...
PB (also being an amicable fellow): What's that then my ole chum?
B: Doesn't Jeremiah 31:31-34 teach that the new covenant is different from the old in some crucial ways, ways which would lead to (so to speak) 'knocking baby-baptism' on the old head?
Now, whilst PB would always have had plenty of responses at this point (such as 'hmmm, to what extent do you think Jeremiah 31 is eschatologically fulfilled?'), Neil Jeffers has ably provided another, and that derived from a parallel 'new covenant' passage in Jeremiah:
PB: Good point my good man. However, I fear that Jeremiah 32: 37-41 speaks of the new covenant and includes the children of believers.
B: (mumbles something about Spurgeon and heads for the hills)
Ok, so it's not as straight-forward as that (and obviously Reformed Baptist's would hardly be conquered by a single text). If you want the arguments in all their exegetical and systematic detail then read Neil's dissertation (sorry if you're reading this and not at Oak Hill and therefore can't).
BTW I love my baptist brethren, John Bunyan was a legend, Piper is an inspiration, etc. etc. etc.
Baptist: Oi, stop baptising babies, where do you get that from in the bible eh?
Paedobaptist: Er, no, I'm not gonna stop. Baptising infants of believers is taught in the bible, so it is.
B: Where?
PB: Well, in that whole covenant thing.
B (since he is a reformed baptist): Covenant? Yeah, I've heard of that. Proceed my good man, how does it establish your bizarre watery practices?!
PB: Well, y'know, that thing about the children of believers being included in the covenant along with their parents, and therefore receiving the covenant sign too - circumcision in the old, baptism in the new.
B (being an amicable fellow): Ah, I see. There's one problem with that...
PB (also being an amicable fellow): What's that then my ole chum?
B: Doesn't Jeremiah 31:31-34 teach that the new covenant is different from the old in some crucial ways, ways which would lead to (so to speak) 'knocking baby-baptism' on the old head?
Now, whilst PB would always have had plenty of responses at this point (such as 'hmmm, to what extent do you think Jeremiah 31 is eschatologically fulfilled?'), Neil Jeffers has ably provided another, and that derived from a parallel 'new covenant' passage in Jeremiah:
PB: Good point my good man. However, I fear that Jeremiah 32: 37-41 speaks of the new covenant and includes the children of believers.
B: (mumbles something about Spurgeon and heads for the hills)
Ok, so it's not as straight-forward as that (and obviously Reformed Baptist's would hardly be conquered by a single text). If you want the arguments in all their exegetical and systematic detail then read Neil's dissertation (sorry if you're reading this and not at Oak Hill and therefore can't).
BTW I love my baptist brethren, John Bunyan was a legend, Piper is an inspiration, etc. etc. etc.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Through New Eyes 2
It has been a long time since the first post on this book.
Typology
One of the things that really attracts me to Jordan's work is the importance he places on typology. Typology has long been neglected, often for (an understandable but misguided) fear of descending into uncontrolled allegorising (I remember my Dad's indignation when an elder (!) at the church I grew up told him that he thought typology was 'tripeology').
For Jordan, typology is related to the symbolic nature of the whole creation and even history itself. Man, as God's image-bearer, has the task of building civilisations, the blueprint for which is Heaven itself (i.e. not heaven = sky). In creation God himself was working to lay the foundations and set the pattern for this glorification of earth.
Moreover, Jordan argues, at various stages in history God gave visions of Heaven as blueprints for the task of glorifying the earth. These successive visions are 'types' or patterns, with each one more glorious than the last (Tabernacle-Temple-Ezekiel’s Temple-New Jerusalem). Not surprisingly then, history too is intrinsically typological:
"Typology is the fundamental Biblical philosophy of history…It means that the successive stages of world history have a meaning, a meaning related to the heavenly pattern and God’s purpose to glorify man and the world progressively."
Therefore
"The key to unlocking the meaning of history lies in the typological blueprint of heaven, as heaven progressively is impressed upon the earth, and as the Heavenly Man, Jesus Christ, is progressively impressed upon His people.” (p50-51)
Jordan helpfully notes how typology was central to the exegesis of the Church Fathers, not least because it was able to answer both Gnostics (since typology shows that the bible has an essential, historical and covenantal unity) and Judaisers (since typology shows how the New transcends and fulfills the Old).
Typology then, is a much needed perspective on the bible if we are to undertake the task we pray about in the Lord's prayer;
Our Father in heaven
Hallowed be your name
Your Kingdom come
Your will be done
On earth as in heaven
Typology
One of the things that really attracts me to Jordan's work is the importance he places on typology. Typology has long been neglected, often for (an understandable but misguided) fear of descending into uncontrolled allegorising (I remember my Dad's indignation when an elder (!) at the church I grew up told him that he thought typology was 'tripeology').
For Jordan, typology is related to the symbolic nature of the whole creation and even history itself. Man, as God's image-bearer, has the task of building civilisations, the blueprint for which is Heaven itself (i.e. not heaven = sky). In creation God himself was working to lay the foundations and set the pattern for this glorification of earth.
Moreover, Jordan argues, at various stages in history God gave visions of Heaven as blueprints for the task of glorifying the earth. These successive visions are 'types' or patterns, with each one more glorious than the last (Tabernacle-Temple-Ezekiel’s Temple-New Jerusalem). Not surprisingly then, history too is intrinsically typological:
"Typology is the fundamental Biblical philosophy of history…It means that the successive stages of world history have a meaning, a meaning related to the heavenly pattern and God’s purpose to glorify man and the world progressively."
Therefore
"The key to unlocking the meaning of history lies in the typological blueprint of heaven, as heaven progressively is impressed upon the earth, and as the Heavenly Man, Jesus Christ, is progressively impressed upon His people.” (p50-51)
Jordan helpfully notes how typology was central to the exegesis of the Church Fathers, not least because it was able to answer both Gnostics (since typology shows that the bible has an essential, historical and covenantal unity) and Judaisers (since typology shows how the New transcends and fulfills the Old).
Typology then, is a much needed perspective on the bible if we are to undertake the task we pray about in the Lord's prayer;
Our Father in heaven
Hallowed be your name
Your Kingdom come
Your will be done
On earth as in heaven
Just say 'no'
"All preaching must be destructive as well as constructive."
The above is just one of the highlights from Dick Lucas at the (currently ongoing) preaching conference at Oak Hill. Dick encouraged us to preach the negatives as well as the positives, since without the negatives ('salvation is found in no-one else') the positives ('Jesus saves') make little sense. God's word demolishes the thought-strongholds of Satan as well as establishing the Kingdom.
The above is just one of the highlights from Dick Lucas at the (currently ongoing) preaching conference at Oak Hill. Dick encouraged us to preach the negatives as well as the positives, since without the negatives ('salvation is found in no-one else') the positives ('Jesus saves') make little sense. God's word demolishes the thought-strongholds of Satan as well as establishing the Kingdom.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Over
Exams over, last essay handed in this AM.
Seven Highlights of the year (in no particular order):
1. Changing my mind on just about everything (slight exaggeration, but lots of things, some changes still in progress).
2. The Smashing Pumpkins re-forming.
3. Church Planting in Southgate. It's good to dream.
4. Redeemer New York visit.
5. Having just about every course prove that 'the gospel's bigger than you think.'
6. My new imac (cue chorus of thousands chanting "imac, imac!").
7. Christ Church Central.
Seven Highlights of the year (in no particular order):
1. Changing my mind on just about everything (slight exaggeration, but lots of things, some changes still in progress).
2. The Smashing Pumpkins re-forming.
3. Church Planting in Southgate. It's good to dream.
4. Redeemer New York visit.
5. Having just about every course prove that 'the gospel's bigger than you think.'
6. My new imac (cue chorus of thousands chanting "imac, imac!").
7. Christ Church Central.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
New or Renewed Creation
So, during conversational theology time today (normal people call it a coffee break) the following came up;
Where would you take someone (in the bible) to persuade them that this earth continues and that the new heavens and the new earth are 'renewed/transfigured/perfected/cleansed' versions of this creation rather than totally 'new'? (NB. some people think that this earth is trashed and God makes a new one, hence our discussion)
We came up with
A. Jesus' resurrection body was his 'old' one resurrected (and he is the beginning of the new creation see 2 Cor 5:17).
B. There is continuity between our bodies now and our resurrected bodies (otherwise it's not a resurrection is it?).
And that was sort of it (someone said some good stuff about AD70 too but it would take me a long time to explain it on this blog and I'm tired). Which is a poor show really.
Having thought since then I reckon I'd add a further suggestion
C. Unless this earth continues then God has sort of been thwarted in his original creaton intentions hasn't he? The one he originally made and was good has been totally ruined by sin and so he has to rubbish it and get a new one.
D. Romans 8:20-21 and the liberation of the (present) creation from bondage to decay when the sons of God are revealed in glory. It would be odd if this 'liberation' took the form of total abolition.
But really it's a poor show, especially if there are biblicists to be persuaded. So, help needed, and lots of lovely lovely texts, please post suggestions.
Where would you take someone (in the bible) to persuade them that this earth continues and that the new heavens and the new earth are 'renewed/transfigured/perfected/cleansed' versions of this creation rather than totally 'new'? (NB. some people think that this earth is trashed and God makes a new one, hence our discussion)
We came up with
A. Jesus' resurrection body was his 'old' one resurrected (and he is the beginning of the new creation see 2 Cor 5:17).
B. There is continuity between our bodies now and our resurrected bodies (otherwise it's not a resurrection is it?).
And that was sort of it (someone said some good stuff about AD70 too but it would take me a long time to explain it on this blog and I'm tired). Which is a poor show really.
Having thought since then I reckon I'd add a further suggestion
C. Unless this earth continues then God has sort of been thwarted in his original creaton intentions hasn't he? The one he originally made and was good has been totally ruined by sin and so he has to rubbish it and get a new one.
D. Romans 8:20-21 and the liberation of the (present) creation from bondage to decay when the sons of God are revealed in glory. It would be odd if this 'liberation' took the form of total abolition.
But really it's a poor show, especially if there are biblicists to be persuaded. So, help needed, and lots of lovely lovely texts, please post suggestions.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Anyone any good at drawing stick men?
I love the 2 ways to live gospel outline for so many reasons. It roots sin in creation, it (sort of) attempts to incorporate elements systematic and redemptive-historical theology, and yet...
Having read (and chatted about) this post I've been reminded of something I have been thinking about for a while now on and off.
I think we need another (maybe more than one more) gospel outline in our armoury for use in evangelism and in tracts etc. One that (for example)
a. Does not assume pagans that someone's initial interest in the gospel stems from a feeling that he/she 'needs to be right with God'.
b. But perhaps (for e.g.) starts from the big concerns and worries and hopes and dreams people do have (the environment, relationships, hedonism, and so on) and gets to the big themes of creation-sin-wrath-cross/resurrection etc. from there.
c. Even more than 2ways2live (which is probably the best on the market for this type of thing) marries biblical with systematic theology (story and proposition).
d. Incorporates the communal/corporate aspects of the gospel (and of what the gospel creates i.e. Church) with the appropriate challenge to the individual.
I imagine getting c. right is a key to the others.
After all the gospel is rich and the links between it and people's needs, concerns, questions, failings, fears, dreams etc. are multiple. A big understanding of the gospel and its application more than appropriately equips us for engaging with postmoderns/goths/new-agers/Hindus/political extremists/hedonists/every other sub-group and 'tribe' in out culture.
So, if anyone wants to help me devise one (and especially if you are good at drawing)...
Having read (and chatted about) this post I've been reminded of something I have been thinking about for a while now on and off.
I think we need another (maybe more than one more) gospel outline in our armoury for use in evangelism and in tracts etc. One that (for example)
a. Does not assume pagans that someone's initial interest in the gospel stems from a feeling that he/she 'needs to be right with God'.
b. But perhaps (for e.g.) starts from the big concerns and worries and hopes and dreams people do have (the environment, relationships, hedonism, and so on) and gets to the big themes of creation-sin-wrath-cross/resurrection etc. from there.
c. Even more than 2ways2live (which is probably the best on the market for this type of thing) marries biblical with systematic theology (story and proposition).
d. Incorporates the communal/corporate aspects of the gospel (and of what the gospel creates i.e. Church) with the appropriate challenge to the individual.
I imagine getting c. right is a key to the others.
After all the gospel is rich and the links between it and people's needs, concerns, questions, failings, fears, dreams etc. are multiple. A big understanding of the gospel and its application more than appropriately equips us for engaging with postmoderns/goths/new-agers/Hindus/political extremists/hedonists/every other sub-group and 'tribe' in out culture.
So, if anyone wants to help me devise one (and especially if you are good at drawing)...
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Gospel Optimism 4: Against Defeatism
The reason gospel optimism is neither wishful folly nor empty-headed positive-thinking is because of the life, death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. Seen as it's ascension day today, have a look at David Field's thoughts on ascension and evangelical defeatism in public life HERE.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Gospel Optimism 3
The following are taken from Spurgeon’s sermon on Luke 1:46 (“My soul doth magnify the Lord.”). Spurgeon is arguing that part of magnifying God is “to think great things” of him.
- The first two quotes are about gospel optimism at the individual level:
“Never say, “It is of no use inducing such a man to attend the means of grace. He is a blaspheming wretch. All that he would do if he heard a sermon would be to make sport of it for next week”…Such unbelieving talk is making little of God. Is it not so? Is it not dishonouring God to think that His gospel cannot reach the most depraved hearts?”
“Believe great things of God. I can honestly say this – that since God saved me I never doubted His power to save anybody.”
- Then Spurgeon turns his eye to the global picture, and to eschatological optimism:
“Believe great things of Him. Believe that China can be made into a province of the celestial Kingdom. Believe that India will cast her riches as Jesus’ feet. Believe that the round world will yet be a pearl on Christ’s finger-ring. Do not go in for the dispiriting, despairing, unmanly, un-Christly ideas of those who say “The world is not to be converted. It is a poor wreck that will go to pieces, and we are to fish off here and there one from the water-logged hulk.” Brethren, never believe that we are to stand by and see the eternal defeat of God.”
- and, in a rhetorical flourish that is typical of the great preacher there's even stronger stuff:
“It shall never be said that God could not save the world by the preaching of the gospel, and by the work of the Holy Spirit and therefore must needs bring in the advent of the Lord to do it. I believe in the coming of the Lord, but , blessed be his name, I believe also that the battle which he has begun in the Spirit He will fight out in the old style, and finish with a victory in the very manner in which He opened the conflict. It pleases Him by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe , and it will please him to continue to do so till the whole round earth shall ring with the hallelujahs of praise to the grace of God…”
I find all that both challenging and enchanting.
All from Charles H. Spurgeon, “The Keynote of a choice Sonnet,” pp.610-615 in The Treasury of the New Testament Volume 1, (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1962), 614.
- The first two quotes are about gospel optimism at the individual level:
“Never say, “It is of no use inducing such a man to attend the means of grace. He is a blaspheming wretch. All that he would do if he heard a sermon would be to make sport of it for next week”…Such unbelieving talk is making little of God. Is it not so? Is it not dishonouring God to think that His gospel cannot reach the most depraved hearts?”
“Believe great things of God. I can honestly say this – that since God saved me I never doubted His power to save anybody.”
- Then Spurgeon turns his eye to the global picture, and to eschatological optimism:
“Believe great things of Him. Believe that China can be made into a province of the celestial Kingdom. Believe that India will cast her riches as Jesus’ feet. Believe that the round world will yet be a pearl on Christ’s finger-ring. Do not go in for the dispiriting, despairing, unmanly, un-Christly ideas of those who say “The world is not to be converted. It is a poor wreck that will go to pieces, and we are to fish off here and there one from the water-logged hulk.” Brethren, never believe that we are to stand by and see the eternal defeat of God.”
- and, in a rhetorical flourish that is typical of the great preacher there's even stronger stuff:
“It shall never be said that God could not save the world by the preaching of the gospel, and by the work of the Holy Spirit and therefore must needs bring in the advent of the Lord to do it. I believe in the coming of the Lord, but , blessed be his name, I believe also that the battle which he has begun in the Spirit He will fight out in the old style, and finish with a victory in the very manner in which He opened the conflict. It pleases Him by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe , and it will please him to continue to do so till the whole round earth shall ring with the hallelujahs of praise to the grace of God…”
I find all that both challenging and enchanting.
All from Charles H. Spurgeon, “The Keynote of a choice Sonnet,” pp.610-615 in The Treasury of the New Testament Volume 1, (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1962), 614.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
