Study Questions on 'The Weight of Glory'

So here are my study questions on 'The Weight of Glory' by CS Lewis. It is for a discussion with a group of very clever people so should be interesting to lead. My problems with the essay may come out in questions 3.(b) and 4.(d).

The difficult thing has been finding a balance between letting Lewis have his say, letting the bible have its say and then analysing Lewis. I'm not 100% happy that I've achieved this. Also there is just so much in the essay that it has been difficult choosing what to explore and what not to. I may have to leave out section 5 if discussion goes on. Any suggestions would be even more welcome than usual.

1. Christian Hedonism

‘We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire’

(a) Is it mercenary for Christians to seek happiness when living out their faith?

2. The Argument from Desire

‘Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.’ (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, "Hope")

(a) Do you agree with the argument?

(b) Lewis finds ‘our desires, not too strong, but too weak […] we are far too easily pleased’. A non-Christian may say that they are perfectly happy with their life as it is, and don’t have a ‘God-shaped hole’ waiting to be filled. Does this invalidate the argument from desire?

3. Our relationship with creation

‘These things – the beauty, the memory of our own past – are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers’

(a) How can we enjoy God’s good creation without it being an idol and rival to God for our affections?

[I think I might show this video before the next bit to mix it up a little!]

‘The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things - the beauty, the memory of our own past - are good images of what we really desire […] they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune wee have not heard […] When all the suns and nebulae have passed away, each one of you will still be alive. Nature is only the image, the symbol […] We are summoned to pass in through Nature, beyond her, into that splendour which she fitfully reflects.’

(b) Does this downplay the goodness of Nature (because beauty is not ‘in’ it)?

(c) Does this overplay the role of Nature (because the beauty, which is God, comes ‘through’ it)?

4. The promise of glory

‘Glory suggests two ideas to me, of which one seems wicked and the other ridiculous. Either glory means to me fame, or it means luminosity.’

(a) Can you think of biblical passages that speak of glory as ‘fame’?

(b)In the light of them how well do you think Lewis does at explaining how ‘fame’ is something ‘of heaven’ rather than ‘of hell’?

(c) Can you think of biblical passages that speak of glory as ‘luminosity’?

(d) In the light of them how well do you think Lewis does at explaining how ‘luminosity’ is not ‘ridiculous’?

5. Difficult bits of the bible

‘If our religion is something objective, then we must never avert our eyes from those elements in it which seem puzzling or repellent; for it will be precisely the puzzling or the repellent which conceals what we do not yet know and need to know’ He applies that to the idea of glory and concludes: ‘having followed up what seemed puzzling and repellent in the sacred books, I find, to my great surprise, looking back, that the connexion is perfectly clear.’

(a) Have you had a similar experience with any particular teaching you find in the bible?

The one mediator

"there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5)

There is a discussion going on at the Coffee Bible Club Blog concerning whether the Angel of YHWH in the OT is God the Son. It is at 166 comments and counting - I've never seen anything like it. I haven't had the time to get involved and I don't have firm enough opinions on it anyway.

But I do have a nagging question:

Can there be a mediator between God and humanity who is not human?

Further, can there be a mediator between God and sinful humanity, who does not share in the suffering which is the just punishment for our sin?

The letter to the Hebrews has been brought into the discussion on the blog, although I've only skim read how people have dealt with it. However it would seem to me that Hebrews says several things that are relevant (that I can think of off the top of my head):

• The Old Covenant was mediated by Angels but the New by God's own Son.
• The Old Covenant was also mediated by imperfect sinful priests the New by a perfect sinless priest.
• Jesus was tempted like we were and so can sympathise with our weaknesses.
• Jesus was made perfect for his mediatory role by suffering.

The OT is characterised by a distance between God and humanity. We have to take at full seriousness the verses about people being unable to see God and live because of their sinfulness. Only in the NT did God come close. As Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:5 it is 'the man' Christ Jesus who is our mediator. That is why the most common places that the NT writers see Christ in the OT are in men - the priests, the kings, the nation.

I don't think the debate is really about whether the Israelites knew the Triune God or a Unitarian God, with the Angel of YHWH as a test case. I think the debate is really about mediation and revelation.

... sorry Glen. I perfectly understand if you want to shoot me now.

The unfortunate formula

"The external Word - what is meant in the common but unfortunate formula "Word and sacrament" - should really be identified more appropriately as preached Word as sacrament and sacrament as Word"

(p.250, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation)

... I really like Oswald Bayer!

The fate of the Unevangelised

I hesitate to post on this. It is not something you should talk about lightly and without feeling the weight of what you are discussing. We are all aware of it and so usually when Christian's are asked about it they tend to be tentative in their response and emphasize how we don't know the fate of anyone, and it is not our place to judge. Instead we rightly emphasise that we know the one who judges and he is just and merciful and we want to leave it with him.

Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that the reason why we have become uncertain about this question is because we have forgotten two points of massive importance. You may want to disagree with the two points I make, but I think it is helpful at least to identify that our response to these two questions determine your answer to a question about the fate of the unevangelised.

1. Creation only communicates the law and not the Gospel

The law is true knowledge of God, and Creation communicates this to us. It presents us with God as he is loving, kind, just and powerful. However, it just presents us with him, and tells us nothing of how we should relate to him - especially as we then look at ourselves. Because of this we create our own ways of relating to him. Our own 'gospels'. We may ignore him because we cannot imagine how we could relate to him. We may bring him close by worshipping created things. We may try and work our way to a place where we can approach him by good works or acts of contemplation. All of these work only by suppressing the knowledge of God that we have through Creation. They work by downplaying the demands of the law, or making them the 'gospel'. Either way we are left without excuse.

Because the distinction between law and Gospel has been forgotten in much contemporary Christianity, we think there is only one kind of knowledge of God. Because of this we merge or confuse law and Gospel and make them both communicated through creation. Therefore the hypothetical unevangelised man alone on an island in the Pacific has the same kind of knowledge as the well-taught Christian in England, just a different amount. In fact there is not just a quantitative difference between the knowledge of God, but a qualitative difference as well.

Classically, when considering the difference between general and special revelation we go to Calvin's Institutes. We would benefit from listening to Luther as well:

Everyone naturally has a general idea that there is a God [...] But someone may object: "If all people know God, why does Paul say that before the proclamation of the gospel the Galatians did not know God?" I reply that there is a twofold knowledge of God [duplex est cognitio Dei], general and particular. All people have the general knowledge, namely that God exists, that he has created heaven and earth, that he is righteous, that he punishes the wicked, etc. But people do not know what God proposes concerning us, what he wants to give and to do, so that he might deliver us from sin and death, and to save us - which is the proper and true knowledge of God [propria et vera est cognitio Dei]. Thus it can happen that someone's face may be familiar to me but I do not really know him, because I do not know his intentions.

(from 1535 Lectures on Galatians, in p.99, The Christian Theology Reader ed by A McGrath)

2. The Holy Spirit can only be received through the specific word of the Gospel

Constantly we are tempted to have the persons of the Trinity acting separately from one another. One way in which we do this is through a concept of a free-floating Spirit who acts apart from the Word - that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course all of creation is sustained by God's Word and the action of his Spirit. In that sense the Spirit does operate even where the Gospel is not preached but he does not indwell believers apart from it.

In what way, then, does the Holy Spirit come to us? How and in what way does he impart himself? The Spirit works faith in the human being inwardly, but never apart from means, never without the external "physical Word" [...]

Luther would formulate the central thesis for his understanding of the Holy Spirit as "The Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel." This means: although the Holy Spirit cannot be apprehended, he is not an incomprehensible fluidity, but comes in a clearly specific Word that can be heard [...]

If the Holy Spirit calls only "through the gospel," but the gospel is gospel only as it is distinguished from the law, then the distinction between law and gospel is decisive with respect to the teaching about the Holy Spirit, about pneumatology, as well. Thus the work of the Spirit is, first of all, to sharpen the law and to bring about God's judgment against sin; only then does the Spirit work through the second and final Word of God, the gospel, in that he forgives sin and creates faith [...]

Whoever agrees today with Luther's understanding of the Holy Spirit, according to which he binds himself to the external Word, and is in agreement with it, muct be ready for the hard task of a fundamental critique of modern subjectivism.

(pp.242-251, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation).

What is good about Creation? (Part 2)

I'm constantly challenged at the moment by someone in our church who doesn't really buy the line that we can enjoy a trip to the cinema to the glory of God. He is more acutely aware than most that 'friendship with the world is enmity with God' and reminds me that we can often shape our understanding of what is sinful by what suits us.

I'm still thinking through how we rightly enjoy creation to the glory of God. One way that has been helpful to my thinking through the issues is to think about my brother.

My brother is an artist. Relationships people have with my brother and his work can fit into several categories:

1. They love my brother but don't care about his work.

These would tend to be my brother's non-arty friends. It is a good relationship, but it is not quite as good as it could be.

2. They love my brother's work but don't care about him.

These would be people who have never met my brother, but bought his art. The person who made the art is an irrelevance. They have a relationship with the art but not my brother.

3. They love my brother because of the work he produces.

These are fair-weather friends. They would think my brother is cool and interesting because of what he makes. They are constantly dropping hints that he could give them bits of his art. Not a good relationship.

4. They love my brother's work because it is made by him.

This would be my mother. Everything my brother produces is great, because it is made by him. She sees no value in the thing itself but only because it is made by her son. This intensely annoys my brother, because to him she may as well ignore the art because her reaction to it is irrelevant.

5. They love both my brother and his work relatively independently.

This is the best relationship you could have with my brother. It is hard to represent diagrammatically. This is what I think we should be seeking for in our relationship with Creation. We should love walking through the dales for what it is in itself - beautiful. However, it is difficult to imagine doing this without setting up an rival to God. The only way I can think we can avoid doing this is if we remember:

1. It is not a zero-sum game. Loving creation does not mean we have less love to give to God.
2. Creation is not independent of God. It is his creation and is sustained by his power.
3. Creation is God's gift to us. It is an act of his overflowing love.
4. Creation speaks of God.

Nevertheless, I think I need to work through more of what it looks like to love both God and Creation, but in a way which gives God all the glory.

Any thoughts?

PS Apologies for the diagrams. They were done in haste.

What is good about creation? (Part 1)

In 'The Weight of Glory' CS Lewis states that:

The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things - the beauty, the memory of our own past - are good images of what we really desire ... they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune wee have not heard.(italics original)

I have two concerns about this.

1. It seems to give creation a position of mediating God.
2. It downplays the goodness of creation.

Maybe I'm being too harsh on Lewis with my first point. I want to be able to say with the bible that the heavens declare the glory of God, but I don't want to use the word 'through' like Lewis does. How can you do this?

Bizarrely, after criticising him for having too 'high' a understanding of creation in one breadth, my second concern comes from him having too low a understanding of creation's goodness.

By making creation a mediator of God's beauty he actually turns it into an obstruction. It becomes instrumental and so disposable. He looks forward to a day when creation passes away and there is just us and God:

When all the suns and nebulae have passed away, each one of you will still be alive. Nature is only the image, the symbol...We are summoned to pass in through Nature, beyond her, into that splendour which she fitfully reflects.

In contrast I would like to say:

1. Christ is the only mediator between God and man.
   Because Christ is not an imperfect image, but God himself, he is not a mediator who serves his purpose until we pass beyond him to a more intimate relationship.
2. Creation is good in itself.
   But this is not because of any worthiness inherent in Creation as a rival to God's worthiness. Instead it is a gift that Creation receives because of the declaration of God (see previous post).

Notes on 'The Weight of Glory' by CS Lewis

I will post some reflections soon because I'm supposed to be leading a discussion on this essay soon. I really like some of it, but I have some big problems with other bits. If you have any thoughts on the essay I'd be glad to hear them. In fact it would also be useful if anyone has any thoughts on leading a discussion on something other than a bible passage. I've never really done that before.
1. The Highest Virtue

Not unselfishness or self-denial, but love.

Problem: negative rather than positive.  Suggests it doesn't matter what the result is, just the nature of the action.  Self-denial seems to be an end in itself.

NT thinks the outcome is important, and promises joy as reward for self-denial.

2. Three kinds of reward

2.1 Mercenary reward

rewards where there is 'no natural connexion with the things you do to earn it'

2.2 Proper reward 1: 'the activity itself in consummation'

e.g. marriage is the proper reward for a lover, victory for a general.

The reward is connected to the activity directly, and the reason for doing the activity.

2.3 Proper reward 2: Reward is connected to the activity, but may not be desired when doing the activity

e.g. Schoolboy learning Greek grammar, works for the sake of grades, but may hope for proper reward of enjoying Greek poetry even though he is not capable of even desiring it.

The desire for the proper reward, and even the partial experience of it, creeps in gradually.

Christian in relation to heaven is in similar position to schoolboy.  Only by obeying (as law) can we slowly begin to desire the ultimate reward which is the proper reward and find 'the first reward of our obedience in our increasing power to desire the ultimate reward'.

Schoolboy while studying Greek grammar will occasionally neglect study to read Shelley:
'the desire which Greek is really going to gratify already exists in him and is attached to objects which seem to him quite unconnected'

Similarly 'if we are made for heaven, the desire for our proper place will be already in us, but not yet attached to the true object, and will even appear as the rival of that object'.  The difference with the schoolboy being that 'any other good on which our desire fixes must be in some degree fallacious, must bear at best only a symbolical relation to what will truly satisfy'.

3. The dissatisfaction of seeking gratification in other things than heaven

3.1 Why it is not talked about
We don't like talking about 'this desire for our far-off country' because it is something we have never actually experienced.

3.2 Good things in creation 'image' the reality
All those moments, or things such as books and music, where we think to find beauty are only conduits 'through' which beauty comes - it is not 'in' them.  They are 'good images of what we really desire'.  If we trust to them they are idols and break our hearts because they are not the thing itself.

3.3 Promise of modern philosophies of progress
Modern philosophies of progress, want to keep us looking for 'the good of man' on earth.  They set about persuading you by:
1. Saying Earth can be made into heaven;
2. Explaining that the fortunate event is in the future (because they know it has not been experienced);
3. Using rhetoric to hide the fact that even if all they promised happened you would still be dissatisfied.

3.4 Apologetic use of this dissatisfaction
Doesn't prove that there we will find the something that actually satisfies, but indicates that it does exist and some will experience it.

4. Nature of Scripture's account of heaven

Scripture points us to where the true object of our desires is.

Scripture is still symbolic as it must be intelligible to us who haven't experienced it. 

Scriptural imagery has authority.

The fact that not all the imagery is immediately appealing is to be expected if it is objective.

The bits that we don't like straight away conceal something which we don't yet know.

5. Different heads of Scriptures promises

Scripture's promises come under five heads:
1. being with Christ
2. being like Christ
3. that we have 'glory'
4. that we shall feast
5. that we shall have official positions (e.g. of rule)

God will be our ultimate bliss but the other images are added because 'any conception of being with Christ which most of us can now form will be not very much symbolical than the other promises'.  This is because as Christ is divine he 'is more than a Person' and so any human conceptions of personal love will be insufficient.

6. The head of promise that we shall have glory

Prominent in the NT even though it has little appeal to 'moderns'.

Suggests two ideas:
1. fame
2. Luminosity

7. Glory as fame

Not fame conferred by other people, but 'appreciation' by God.  Desire for fame is often corrupted by us but it can be pure.

Accepting this 'well done' requires being childlike.  Pride is what prevents us seeking it.  'Perfect humility dispenses with modesty.  If God is satisfied with the work, the work may be satisfied with itself'.

What God thinks of us is more important than what we think of him.

By following through on Scriptural promise which at first was puzzling and repellent we have found the connection between our unsatisfied desires and the scriptural promises.

Part of what makes transitory imperfect experiences of beauty unsatisfactory is that we have not been personally recognised.  They seem to carry a message which is not for us.

This promise that we can be known by God, also contains a warning that it is possible to be left outside, and ignored by God.

8. Glory as luminosity

We want more than to see beauty, we want to be 'united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to bathe in it, to become part of it.'

This is not like being absorbed into nature.  Nature is mortal and just an image.  We pass beyond and through Nature to what she reflects.

9. Life before glory

At the moment we have the self-denial before the joy, so what is the point in thinking about the joy?

It makes us realise the nature of the destiny of other people around us.  We are interacting daily with 'immortal horrors or everlasting splendours'.  This does not prevent merriment, but means that we must take each other seriously.

In particular if he is a Christian neighbour he has Christ ('the glorifier and the glorified') in him.

The Spirit of Christ

A bible study introducing the Holy Spirit. Specifically with the aim of showing up the connections with the historical Jesus and how we can receive him. Please feel free to give some suggestions for improvements.

MARK 1:4-11

⁴And so John came, baptising in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. ⁵The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptised by him in the Jordan River. ⁶John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. ⁷And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. ⁸I baptise you with water, but he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit."

⁹At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptised by John in the Jordan. ¹⁰As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. ¹¹And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

What does John say the difference between his baptism and Jesus' baptism is?
> John baptised with water, Jesus will baptise with the Holy Spirit

What 3 things happen to Jesus at the Jordan river?
1. He is baptised by John
2. Spirit descends on him like a dove
3. God the Father declares that Jesus is his son

[Note: Jesus did not need to be baptised because he needed to repent and be forgiven (compare Matthew 3:13-15). Baptism is linked with repentance and death (Mark 10:35-40; Romans 6:3-4). Jesus was baptised when he didn't need to for the same reason he died when he didn't need to. To identify with sinners and go ahead before them to face God's judgment against sin, and the new life of resurrection.
Similarly, he did not become God's Son at his baptism. He was already his Son before he was sent to this world (John 3:16-17; 1 John 4:9-14).]

ACTS 2:22-41

Peter speaking to a crowd in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus died, was raised from the dead and went to heaven:

²²"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. ²³This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. ²⁴But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

[...]

³²God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. ³³Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. ³⁴For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand ³⁵until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." '

³⁶"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

³⁷When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

³⁸Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

⁴⁰With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." ⁴¹Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Once Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God what does he do?

> Pour out the promised Holy Spirit, which he received (again), on the disciples.

To receive the Spirit what did the hearers of Peter need to do?

> Repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins?
> Through that the promise must be believed. What is the appropriate response to a promise? Faith!

ROMANS 8:5-16

⁵Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; ⁷the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. ⁸Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

⁹You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. ¹⁰But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. ¹¹And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

¹²Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. ¹³For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, ¹⁴because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. ¹⁵For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." ¹⁶The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

What difference does living in accordance with the Spirit make?

> Desiring what the Spirit desires (v.5).
> Life and peace, not death and hostility toward God (vv.6-7; 13).
> Adoption as God's children (vv.14-16)

What is the connection between the Spirit, Jesus Christ and us?
> Both are 'in' Christians (v.9)
> The Spirit gave life to Jesus and to Christians (v.11)
> The Spirit goes together with being children of God (vv.14-16). Christians are children of God, and Jesus was declared to be at his baptism (Mark 1:11).

How do you feel about the idea of the Spirit of Christ 'in you'?
> Invasive?
> Controlling? [so is sin, but this control gives you freedom (Romans 8:2; 2 Corinthians 3:17).]
> Impossible to grasp? [Spirit in the background always pointing us to Christ. The Spirit himself is not visible just his effects, like wind (John 3:8).]


[OPTIONAL EXTRA:]

PHILIPPIANS 2:1-11

¹If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, ²then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. ³Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. ⁴Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

⁵Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

⁶Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, ⁷but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. ⁸And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! ⁹Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, ¹⁰that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What does a life in fellowship with the Spirit look like?
> Christ-like
> Humble to the extent of counting yourself nothing
> Selflessly serving others to the extent of dying

The approach to God

Tom Torrance remembers a trip to the Sinai desert:

Night after night we made our camp in the wilderness, and as the darkness fell we gathered sticks of acacia and camelthorn, the dry sapless bushes of the desert, with which to make a fire. They burned up so quickly and brilliantly, but almost as soon they died away. They had so little substance that when kindled they were consumed almost immediately.

I always thought of Moses when that happened, and his astonishment at the fire in the desert that did not die down. But what was even more astonishing was that the bush itself was not consumed but remained intact [...]

What are we to see in [the burning bush]? Fire that is steady and undying, fire that burns and does not burn away, fire that has no tendency to destruction in its own nature, and fire that is not consumed by its own activity. Surely all that may well be taken as a symbol of the One divine Being whose being derives its law and life from itself [...]

But here is a remarkable fact in this Old Testament record that we must consider: The fire of God had no destructive nature - on the contrary it gave life - but immediately Moses approached the burning bush there leapt out of its flames a voice of urgent command: "Draw not nigh hither put off they shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." Instantly, Moses knew that his life was threatened [...] Now why was it that although the fire carried no threat to the desert bush, but rather enhanced its life, yet when Moses came near, it terrified him and menaced his soul? Burning in this bush and not consuming it was the eternal flame of the life of God, the power of an endless life, the inexhaustible source of love. This is the very God to whom all men aspire, and for whom our mortal souls pant. Human beings grow weary and decay and crumble away into the dust, but here is the fountain of unending life, life that burns like a fire, so gently that it does not burn or consume [...]

Moses draws near, but immediately he is thrust back, and he is afraid because he is a sinner. He is unclean, and God is infinitely holy, and in the presence of sin even God's love is as a consuming fire [...] How are we, then, to approach Him? How can we share in the life and the love which He offers to us, who are sinners? [...]

Jesus washes the feet of the disciples and makes them clean, and in which through the Holy Supper He gives them to participate in the life and love of God.

(pp.127-135, When Christ Comes and Comes Again)

That is a bit of a long quote. But I thought it was about time I gave you a taste of When Christ Comes and Comes Again which is a beautifully written book of evangelistic sermons by the young(ish) Tom Torrance. Highly recommended, although you will have to get it second hand.

Three aspects of union with Christ

Richard Gaffin says there are three aspects or dimensions of union with Christ:

1. The predestinarian 'in Christ' (e.g. Eph 1:3-4)
2. The redemptive-historical 'in Christ' (e.g. Rom 6:8)
3. The actual 'in Christ', or applied union with Christ, (e.g. Rom 16:7)

As usual with these things the key is to neither separate them, merge them together or neglect any one.

BTW I didn't choose the terms. Maybe I would have said (1) the eternally purposed, (2) the objective historical, and (3) the subjective Spiritual, aspects. It may also be more beneficial though to distinguish them in terms of the distinctive roles of the persons of the Trinity... I'll have to think some more, but I just wanted to note them down.

Thirsty camels and hard women

Abraham's servants took 10 camels to find Isaac a wife. After a few days without water they could each drink about 25 gallons of water (p.56, John Walton et al, The IVP Bible Background Commentary). In which case when Rebekah watered the servant's camels until they stopped drinking she must have drawn up to 250 gallons of water from the well.

I would give up after about 20 gallons.

I think she could take me in a fight.

The Jacob/Judah/Joseph Story

Genesis 37-50 is the 'account of Jacob' (Genesis 37:2 NIV). Nevertheless when the writer of Genesis heads a section 'the account of...' he actually tends to tell the story of the children of that person. So 'the account of Terah' is about Abraham and Isaac, 'the account of Isaac' about Jacob (and Esau), etc. So who is Genesis 37-50 about?

Most preachers would answer Joseph. There are some fairly obvious reasons for that but I think there is actually a case that it is primarily about Judah.

Controversial maybe, but here are my reasons:

1. There is a development in Judah's life which is not present in Joseph

Joseph doesn't really change in the story. He is definitely a good guy, but he has his flaws. He is an arrogant and insensitive twit when he has dreams about his brothers, and he toys with his brothers and father when they come to Egypt. Judah however, while shown in a bad light always has a few redeeming features which grow over the narrative.

Judah first suggests that the brothers do not kill Joseph but instead sell him into slavery (better than most of the brothers if not ideal). In Genesis 38 he acts disgracefully toward Tamar but repents of not giving his son Shelah to Tamar. Judah then pledges the security of Benjamin to his father(43:9). When the cup is found in Benjamin's sack he offers that all the brothers be Joseph's servants (44:16). When that does not satisfy he offers to be Benjamin's substitute (44:33).

2. Judah seems to take over the leadership of the brothers

In Genesis 43-44 he is the only one of the brothers mentioned by name speaking to Jacob or to Joseph. He speaks a lot, and wisely.

In contrast Simeon and Levi's leadership in Genesis 34 over Dinah is depicted negatively, and they never take leadership again. Reuben lays with his father's concubine in Genesis 35:22, and while he tries to protect Joseph in Genesis 37, in Genesis 42:37 he says Jacob can kill his sons if he fails to bring back Benjamin! A stark contrast to Judah.

It is not unimportant that these four who are so prominent in the narrative are the first four sons of Leah (Genesis 35:23). Judah is forth in line, but those before them disqualify themself. That certainly seems to be how Jacob views it in his 'blessings' of Genesis 49:3-12.

3. Genesis 38 makes no sense as part of a story about Joseph

The account of Judah and Tamar is large interruption of 'the Joseph story'. It serves no purpose as part of that story, where as all the narrative about Joseph is necessary to understand Judah's story.

4. Jacob's blessing in Genesis 49 singles out Judah

Jacob's blessing of his sons is the climax of the narrative. Joseph does receive great blessing from Jacob but it is Judah who shall have the sceptre and the ruler's staff. Joseph may have been served by all his brothers, but that is not an indication of the future glory of his line. The seed goes Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah... David... Jesus. Joseph's line is ultimately forgotten.

5. Jesus Christ

If all the bible is about Jesus Christ, the descendent of Judah, shouldn't we be a little surprised if Joseph gets more airplay than Judah? Especially if Judah is the fourth child of an unwanted wife who offers himself as a substitute for his brothers, and Joseph is a powerful ruler of Egypt?

Random lists on good teaching

Principles for teaching from Titus 2 (according to G Frame, an elder at my church):

1. Be aware of the differences between people
2. Model the teaching you give
3. Teach both theology and ethics
4. Both encourage and rebuke
5. Motivate people to do good works for the benefit of others and in response to the grace of God.

What you should teach to (according to Isaac Watts):

1. the head
2. the heart; and
3. the will

4 ways of learning (according to Rico Tice):

1. From the front (monologue)
2. In small groups
3. One-to-one
4. On your own

Theocentric or anthroprocentric?

Reading Tom Torrance is great because he gets how exciting and shocking it is that God became man in Jesus Christ. He has taught me to see that this is central to everything, while never losing what PT Forsyth says is 'the true seat of Incarnation — a Christ made sin' ("Immanence and Incarnation"). This post is a bit of an application of that...

Listening to a recent discussion on Wright and Piper's debate I was reminded about how both see much contemporary Christianity as too anthroprocentric, and not theocentric enough. I've never been completely happy with drawing a sharp distinction between the two as humanity is made in the image of God. Therefore to be truly anthroprocentric is to be theocentric.

But we can go further in rejecting this dichotomy.

Both Wright and Piper are part of the Reformed tradition and so this also reminded me of John Halton's post quoting Herman Bavinck saying that 'the Reformed Christian thinks theologically, the Lutheran anthropologically' (RD 1:177). John says that he would like to say that 'the Lutheran thinks Christologically' and to be Christocentric is to combine the two in the God-man.

In Christ the true God is revealed, but we are less familiar with the idea that he also reveals our true humanity. For some reason we have focused on all the NT statements that Jesus is the image of God (e.g. 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3, cf. John 1:18; 12:45; 14:9) as just referring to his divinity and missed the implication that this shows his humanity as well.

As Tom Smail comments:

Christ is both the divine prototype that is stamped on to our humanity and so imparts to it the divine image, and is also the human being who has received that image and is the perfect expression of it. In the rest of us, in our over-flexible human nature, that image has been eroded and distorted but in Christ it is fresh and new, authentic and complete.

(p. 59, Like Father, Like Son)

So if we want to be free to be ourself we have to look to Christ. But not by following his example, because we cannot be the image of God, but by being in the image of God by his gracious identification with us in our sinful twisted humanity.

Adam is, as is said in [Romans 5:14], the type of Him who is to come. Man's essential and original nature is to be found, therefore, not in Adam but in Christ. In Adam we can only find it prefigured. Adam can therefore be interpreted only in the light of Christ and not the other way round.

(p. 29, Karl Barth cited in Tom Smail, Like Father, Like Son)

Truth, goodness and beauty

"Beauty is truth, truth is beauty, that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

(John Keats, 'Ode on a Grecian Urn')

Apparently the three-fold distinction between things being true, good and beautiful is an old one, although I don't remember hearing of it till now. I can't quite find where it originates. Anyone know?

I think it may be quite helpful whenever we explain the Gospel to remember it is true, good and beautiful. Different people are encouraged in their growth by one or the other, and different people find one or another a stumbling block to coming to faith.

I was reading Galatians the other day, and I must confess that I was finding Galatians 1-2 quite boring (I know I shouldn't, but it is true). As I was reflecting on this I realised that it was because Paul is largely addressing why the Gospel he preached is true because it is of a divine origin, and I'm not really interested in whether it is true or not. Not because I don't care if it is a lie, but because I already accept that it is true. Instead I want to be reminded of its beauty!

But there is a reason it is in the Bible. As I thought more about Paul's audience I realised that most people I know don't believe for reasons that could broadly be categorised as either (whether they confess it or not):

• Christianity is not true (e.g. 'Science disproves Genesis', 'Miracles cannot happen', 'Jesus did not rise again on the third day', 'we cannot trust the gospels as historical accounts', 'a good God and suffering are logically incompatible'); or
• Christianity is not attractive (e.g. 'It is unfair for God send people to hell', 'Christianity is a straitjacket', 'Christianity causes wars', 'it is not worth me giving up X to become a Christian', 'a God who allows suffering is not worth worshipping')

I think I became a Christian primarily because it was attractive (morally and aesthetically) rather that because I believed it to be true. Because of that I think I am usually tend to be a bit of a fideist and I'm slow to address issues of truth when speaking to others.

But I don't think this is a good place to be. I may be more excited by the attractiveness of the Gospel but truth and attractiveness have to go together as Keats says. Therefore I need to change for my own benefit, and for the benefit of those I speak about the Gospel to.

Mark 13 events that happen in Mark 14-16

Following on from my last post on Mark 13, here are some pointers to an over-realized eschatology of Mark 13.

Mark 13	Mark 14-15
'brother will deliver brother over to death' (v.12)	Judas betrays Jesus (14:10-11)
'those who are in Judea flee to the mountains' (v. 14)	Jesus predicts that 'the sheep will be scattered' (14:27) when he is arrested and dies, which is what happens (14:50).
Jesus constantly commands that the disciples 'stay awake' and 'be on guard' (vv. 9, 23, 33, 35, 37)	Jesus in Gethsemane tries to encourage the disciples to keep watch and stay awake but they keep falling asleep (14:32-42)
Jesus predicts the disciples will be brought before governors, councils and kings (v.9)	Jesus is brought before the 'chief priests and the whole Council' and Pilate (14:53-15:5)
Jesus says that he may come 'when the rooster crows' (v.35)	Peter denies Jesus while and the rooster crows (14:66-72)
'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light' (v.24)	'when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour' (15:33)
'There will be earthquakes in various places' (v.8)	[As Jesus dies 'the earth shook, and the rocks were split' (Matthew 27:51)]

Obviously they don't quite fit. But nevertheless there is a striking overlap. I suppose if the whole of history is concentrated and contained in Christ's passion and resurrection then it is to be expected.

Still don't know what to do with it though.

What is the point of Mark 13?

Mark 13 caused me some considerable vexation when we reached it in Christianity Explored. I find it difficult because much of it seems to point toward the passion narrative, some seems to fit better with the early church (pre 70AD?), but some of it doesn't seem to have happened at all. However, this is perhaps only a problem if we assume that Jesus is giving a straight answer to the disciples' question ('when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?') which would be most unlike him. I decided to see what the explicit commands that Jesus gives were to get more of a handle on the passage. They are:

• 'See that no one leads you astray' (v.5)
• 'do not be alarmed' (v.7)
• 'be on your guard' (v.9)
• 'do not be anxious' when before governors and kings about 'what you are to say' (v.11)
• 'Pray that it may not happen in winter' (v.18)
• 'if anyone says to you, "Look, here is the Christ!" or "Look, there he is!" do not believe it' (v.21)
• 'be on guard' (v.23)
• 'know that he is near' (v.29)
• 'Be on guard, keep awake' (v.33)
• 'stay awake' (v.35)
• 'Stay awake' (v.37)

Jesus is not concerned that we know when the end will come because no-one but the Father knows that (v.32). In that respect he doesn't answer the disciples' question. Instead he is concerned that we are aware that the day could come at any moment, but that nevertheless we shouldn't panic when signs of this appear.

Perhaps Tom Torrance is right when he comments on Mark 13:

He has told us that [his second coming] will be sudden, and just when we expect it least, like a thief in the night. But there are signs of His coming. They are not signs that tell us when He will come, but signs and pledges telling us unmistakably that the end will come, as surely as day follows night, and that world-history will be brought to a close [...]

God gives us signs in history like that, not in order to predict the time of Christ's coming but to keep us faithful to our task of preaching the Gospel to all nations, and serving of our fellow-men in acts of unstinting love.

(pp. 21-22, When Christ Comes and Comes Again)

I'm still not sure, but I'm still thinking.

We must work the works

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' Jesus answered, 'It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. (John 9:1-4)

This man was not blind 'just' so Jesus could show his power in healing him. He was blind so that he may make the journey of faith that he makes in John 9 from believing Jesus is 'The man called Jesus' (v.11) to a 'prophet' (v.17) to 'from God' (v.33) to 'Lord' who he worships (v.38). The work is not the miracle of healing but the miracle of faith.

It is also not just something that Jesus did. That is why 'we must work the works of him who sent me'.

Jesus promises we will do 'greater works' than the works he does (14:12). Jesus says the works which the Father does he does in him he does by 'the words that I say to you'. Therefore the 'greater works' are the preaching of the Gospel. That is not only why one man was born blind but why suffering continues even today.

We rightly want to see suffering end, but God allows it to continue because he is 'patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance' (2 Peter 3:9). But night is coming...

One reason no judgment is no good

Jason Goroncy has already quoted this this week, but it is so good I wanted to post it here. This is why I like PT Forsyth and Lutheranism...

If a message of grace tell us there was and is no judgment any more, and that God has simply put judgment on one side and has not exercised it, that cannot be the true grace of God. Surely the grace of God cannot stultify our human conscience like that! So we are haunted by mistrust, unless conscience be drowned in a haze of heart. We have always the feeling and fear that there is judgment to follow. How may I be sure that I may take the grace of God seriously and finally, how be sure that I have complete salvation, that I may entirely trust it through the worst my conscience may say? Only thus, that God is the Reconciler, that He reconciles in Christ's Cross that the judgment of sin was there for good and all. We are judged now by the Cross, and by the Cross we stand or fall. The great sin is not something we do, but it is refusing to make ourselves right with God in Christ's Cross. We are judged in the end by our relation to the Cross of Christ. It is the principle of our moral world. All judgment is committed to that Son. We stand before God at last according as we are owned by Christ. We are confessed by Him according to our confession of Him. Nemesis on us is hallowed as a part of the judgment on Him to whose death we are joined. There is no such thorough assertion of God's holy, loving law anywhere as there, where in the Cross it was given its own, and was perfected in judgment in Him who became a curse for us. His prayer for His murderers, or the closing sigh of victory in the midst of that judgment, vouches for ever to this, that it is the same holy will which judges man's wickedness and also loves us and gives His Son for a propitiation for us. Only that holiness which is changeless in its judgment could be changeless also in grace. His grace was so little to be foiled that He graciously took His own judgment.

(pp. 167-9, PT Forsyth, The Work of Christ)

Christ's personality

What a man! What a maker of men! What a master of men and of events! What a sovereignty was the mien of his self-consciousness! Lord of himself and all besides; with an irresistible power to force, and even hurry, events on a world scale; and yet with the soul that sat among children, and the heart in which children sat. He had an intense reverence for a past that was yet too small for him. It rent him to rend it; and yet he had to break it up, to the breaking of his own heart, in the greatest revolution the world ever saw. He was an austere man, a severe critic, a born fighter, of choleric wrath and fiery scorn, so that the people thought he was Elijah or the Baptist; yet he was gentle to the last degree, especially with those ignorant and out of the way. In the thick of life and love he yet stood detached, sympathetic yet aloof, cleaving at once both to men and to solitude. He spoke with such power because he loved silence. With an almost sacramental idea of human relations, especially the central relation of marriage, he yet avoided for himself every bond of property, vocation, or family; and he cut these bonds when they stood between men and himself. Full of biting irony upon men he yet was their healer and Saviour. Of a quick understanding which tore through the pedantry of the Scribes, with a sure dialectic which never failed him, and never left him at the mercy of his hecklers, he had yet a naive nature and a pictorial speech which brought him very near to the simplest - whom next moment some deep paradox would confound, and even wound. Clear, calm, determined, and sure of his mark, he was next hour roused to such impulsive passion as if he were beside himself. But if he let himself go he always knew where he was going. With a royal, and almost proud, sense of himself, he poured out his sould unto God and unto death, and was the friend of publicans and sinners. With a superhuman sense of authority he had superhuman humility.

[...]

He was all that, in a unity greater than the unity of the most uncommon men, a unity ruled by his tremendous will.

(pp. 64-66, PT Forsyth, The Person and Place of Jesus Christ)

Yet, as Hunter comments, 'great as Christ's personality was, the real site of his greatness lies in what he did, in the cross' (pp. 70-71, PT Forsyth).

Sanctification on task

Regeneration, or sanctification - not in individual lives only but collectively in the church's life in the world - is thus the true work of that 'other Paraclete' (or 'Standby') as John calls the Spirit. But alas, said Forsyth, we modern Christians have sadly debased and misconstrued the meaning of that grand old word 'sanctification'. In our modern man-centred religion, we have turned it into self-consecration. But sanctification is not spiritual self-culture, and 'it is a dangerous thing to work at your own holiness'. Paul did not consecrate himself to his great work. He obeyed a call and found his sanctification - his growth in grace - in the pursuit of his ministry. So we too are sanctified when we are on our Saviour's business. Growth in grace comes not by working at it but by passing ever more deeply into self-forgetfulness - into the grace, the cross and the service of Christ.

(p. 65, AM Hunter, PT Forsyth)

Is Luther's concept of vocation outdated?

At the Reformation, with monasticism in his mind's eye, Luther rightly declared that Christians could serve God as truly in their daily work as in their Sunday worship. This was a great step forward. But why does this Protestant conception of Christian vocation sound much less convincing today? Because we live in a quite different world from Luther's.

(p. 96, AM Hunter, PT Forsyth)

As a Luther fan you will know it pains me to admit that Hunter has a point. The world of work is different in many ways. In particular:

• Work is less about creating things of clear benefit to people, but more about creating money.
• We are much freer in the choice of career we follow.
• There is much greater tension between benefiting your employer, benefiting your fellow workers, and benefiting the customer. Where do you find the balance?

I'm not sure of that I have a theology of work that is able to answer these newish challenges. I am yet to read or hear anyone else express such a theology either. Any ideas?

For what it's worth, you can read below what Hunter thinks. Writing in the 70s he is unsurprisingly concerned for the worker primarily.

The long and short of it is that Christian ethics cannot now rest content with calling on such people to glorify God in their station. We of the Christian church must seek to promote such a re-organization industry as will give the worker freedom to live as a man should, find joy in his work, be able to maintain his family, and become a responsible partner, to some degree. in the industry of which he is a part.

(ibid, pp.96-97)

Do not be anxious

Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? [...God will] clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

(Matthew 6)

Jesus sees a things a bit like this:

God gives us life and looks after our body through food, drink and clothing. The problem comes when we expect those things are the ultimate source of our life and body. Is it Tim Keller who says that we should not make good things ultimate things? Jesus is saying the same.

Martin Luther (on whom Keller relies) asks:

What does it mean to have a god? or, what is God? Answer: A god means that from which we are to expect all good...(source)

I think that is the best definition going. It also shows that being anxious is not just lack of trust, it is idolatry.

The harvest is plentiful

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, 'The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest.' (Matthew 9:36-38)

A friend wondered this weekend why when Jesus says that the harvest is plentiful he finds that nobody he knows is just waiting eagerly to hear the Gospel if someone comes with it.

I had no answer...

Then today when I was reading Joel I realised that maybe being a worker was not such a joyous task after all, and the harvest is a less pleasant thing. The immediate context in Matthew does suggest that it is, but the wider Biblical context suggests otherwise:

For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: The daughter of Babylon is like a threshing floor at the time when it is trodden; yet a little while and the time of her harvest will come. (Jeremiah 51:33)

Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe. Go in, tread, for the winepress is full. The vats overflow, for their evil is great. (Joel 3:13)

For you also, O Judah, a harvest is appointed (Hosea 6:11a)

another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat on the cloud, 'Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.' So he who sat on the cloud swung his sickle across the earth, and the earth was reaped. (Revelation 14:15-16)