Here are two talks I recently gave on the doctrines of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. Unfortunately the more detailed application is missing from the first talk because the laptop that was recording the talks ran out of battery partway through my talk! However, there’s still about 50 minutes of material in both talks.
|
||||
|
This is from my friend and colleague Robert Cavin: When we were on vacation in the south of England a few weeks ago, we stopped at Bath, England on the way home. Why? It’s the site of an ancient Roman bath. The place has the only naturally occurring, thermal hot springs in England. So, in the 1st century AD, the Romans built an elaborate temple and bathing complex. A good picture of the inside:
But that’s not what got my blood pumping . . . On the inside, they had a museum of sorts. As we’re walking through looking at ancient coins, inscriptions, etc., etc., I SAW THIS!
Why would this get me so excited? Because it illustrates a verse in the New Testament. In the NT book of 1 Peter, the Apostle Peter is writing sometime before about 67 A.D. to Christians living throughout Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). In 1 Peter 3:3, ‘ole Peter gives this exhortation to Christian women: And let not your adornment be merely external– braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; (New American Standard) The TNIV translates the greek word as “elaborate hairstyles” . . . Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.” (Today’s New International Version) Peter tells Christian women to not be concerned with “braiding the hair” or “elaborate hairstyles”. What in the world? What’s ‘ole Peter referring to? Well, if you’ll look at the bust, you’ll see that the lady’s hairstyle is in fact a ton of elaborately woven, individual braids! Here’s a picture from the back.
This bust was made in same century that Peter wrote! It illustrates the height of Imperial Roman fashion. What do you think ladies, will it come back in style? In the next verse, Peter writes: Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. (1 Peter 3:4, TNIV) Timeless truth from God’s Word illustrated at the Roman Baths! When I say excellent, I mean it in all senses I can think of: musically, lyrically and theologically. We–I mean me, Bronwyn, our 8 year old, 6 year old and 3 year old–love Ben Pakula’s music. It’s so true, and it’s so awesome. Those fantastic truths about our powerful God and his plan for salvation constantly echo around our heads as we hum his tunes. We need more Ben Pakula music in the world! Ben’s looking for donations. Have a listen to his music, and if you like it, send a few dollars (or pounds) his way! Ben says:
From the Sola Panel:
The UK government has launched a review into occupational Health & Safety laws (OH&S). It seems to be a very popular move. Health is good. Safety is good. But the multiplication of rules purportedly designed to enforce it often leads to madness. Most of us are aware of safety rules that seem to be either over the top or incomprehensible. We received a note from our school a few months ago, informing us that the last day of the term would be a non-uniform day, but instructing us that the children were not to wear any hats—“for health and safety reasons“. A short while later, the school sent home another note, asking us to send our children to school in hats to protect them from the sun. It’s a great school, and the teachers are wonderful people who provide the kids with an excellent education. But this shows that even with the best intentions and among the best of people, rules can easily take over from common sense. I used to work for a company that made solar panels. We dealt with quite a number of extremely toxic gases and chemicals. Very early on in the company’s life, we had to introduce OH&S policies. I can still remember my exceedingly wise manager, who had a consistent strategy whenever we had a seminar or meeting about health and safety. If anybody ever began a meeting or seminar talking about rules, legislation or fines, then he would stop them in their tracks. He would insist that we had to begin with health and safety itself. We had to be firm on the idea that a healthy and safe workplace was good for everybody and the idea that there were real risks that we had to work together to avoid. Our aim was not to keep rules or avoid fines; our aim was to be healthy and safe, and whatever rules we put into place were only there to serve that ultimate goal. Needless to say, it was a great place to work. There’s a parallel here with Jesus’ attitude to the Old Testament law. Jesus came into a situation where there was a lot of rule-keeping going on. People were trying to keep God’s rules. Extra rules had even been added to ensure that God’s own original rules were kept. But in many places, the point of the rule-keeping had been lost: there were rules that were over the top (Mark 2:23-24), rules that were tragically inconsistent and heartless (Luke 13:14-16) and rules that ultimately contradicted God’s own law (Mark 7:9-13). Jesus brought clarity to this situation by insisting that the rules only work when we realize that there is something more fundamental than keeping the rules: we need to know the God who gave these rules, and we need to love what God loves. That’s why the Sermon on the Mount, which talks a lot about God’s law, begins with those sayings about blessedness (Matt 5:3-10). Blessed, for example, are the peacemakers, “for they shall be called sons of God” (Matt 5:9). As we read more of the Sermon on the Mount, we learn that if we merely live our lives doing what God wants without knowing him as Father or loving what he loves, then, in the end, we will not even enter the kingdom of heaven. But if we know God as Father and love what he loves, then the things he commands (and even more than what he explicitly commands) will be our desires too. Our relationship with God is not defined ultimately by doing his commandments; it is defined by knowing God as Father, and it is lived through loving what God loves. If we know him as Father, we will do what he commands. If we don’t know him as Father, then no amount of rule-keeping will save us. Comments on the Sola PanelOn the Sola Panel:
Once I got to church on time, but God arrived 20 minutes late. On the other hand, occasionally I’ve been to church and God didn’t manage to turn up at all. At least, that’s the impression you’d form if you judged by expectations. The times I remember when nobody expected God to show up at church involved some friendly, relaxed informal gatherings. Don’t get me wrong; I personally like friendly, relaxed informal gatherings. But every so often, I think we may have been so keen on being friendly, relaxed and informal that nobody seems to be expecting the creator and judge of the universe to do anything in particular. We all had a great time of enjoyable fellowship and good coffee, and we talked afterwards about the latest TV shows, and then we went home. At another church I visited, God did turn up quite spectacularly, but he was 20 minutes late. Church started at 7 pm with a series of slow, reflective songs. The band was excellent; the choir on the stage was full of young, smiling faces; the lighting was comfortably moody. Slowly, imperceptibly, the music started to get more intense. At 7:20 pm, it reached a crescendo, the choir started swaying back and forth, and the lights suddenly became intensely bright. At that point, the bloke on the stage with the microphone said, “Wow. I reckon God’s really here now!“ I kid you not. What should we expect of God when it comes to church? The Bible does talk about God or Jesus being especially present when we gather. In Matthew 18:20, Jesus says, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them“. Paul talks about the “power of our Lord Jesus“ being present when Christians are “assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus“ (1 Cor 5:4). When the “whole church comes together“, Paul says that outsiders should recognize that “God is really among you“ (1 Cor 14:23, 25). We should expect God’s presence in church. But what should we expect God to actually do when he shows up? Should we expect a buzz of excitement as Jesus electrifies the crowd, rocks our world and transports us to the third heaven? Or should we expect a feeling of awe and holiness in the presence of a semi-tangible divine essence? Perhaps we should expect a sense of inexplicable inner peace, which transcends our busy or humdrum existence and helps us to feel calm and happy. Well, not exactly. In fact, the Bible verses I just cited are all about people being convicted of their sin. The “two or three“ who are gathered in Matthew 18:20 are two or three witnesses to the sin of a brother (Matt 18:15-16). The power of the Lord Jesus in 1 Corinthians 5:4 is there to judge a sexually immoral church member (1 Cor 5:1, 5). The outsider in 1 Corinthians 14:25 says, “God is really among you“ because he has been convicted and called to account, and has had the secrets of his heart disclosed by the church speaking God’s word (1 Cor 14:24). What should we expect God to do among us when we gather? In a nutshell, we should expect God to be doing his gospel work. We should expect God to be among us, convicting us of sin (Matt 18:16, 20; 1 Cor 5:4-5; 1 Cor 14:24). We should expect Jesus to be among us, rescuing sinners from God’s judgment (Matt 18:15; 1 Cor 5:5). Or, looking further afield in the Bible, we should expect Jesus to be among us to enable us to do his will and keep his commandments (Heb 13:20-21; John 14:20-21)—especially the command to love one another (John 15:11-12). We should expect Christ to create the hope of glory in us (Col 1:27). Fundamentally, we should be expecting God, our creator, Lord and saviour, to speak to us in church by his creative and powerful and saving word (John 17:20-23; 1 Cor 14:24; Col 1:5-6). This can happen in all sorts of contexts, can’t it. It’s not ultimately a matter of the formality or informality of the gathering, the leadership (or non-leadership) style, the number of people, the band, the songs or the lighting. What does matter is that God’s word is spoken, heard and taken to heart. When that happens, we should expect great things. That’s because church is always intimately connected to that great heavenly gathering where God, the judge of all, is present and where Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins speaks to us a serious, comforting and awesome message (Heb 12:22-24). What are you expecting from God when you come to church? Comments on the Sola PanelWhat is the purpose of the law according to Galatians 3? (This post is part of a series) The immediate question in Galatians 3:17 is that of the status of the Sinai covenant. Paul’s opponents seem to have been arguing that the Gentiles could only be blessed if they joined the covenant people and submitted to the covenantal obligations. After all, this seemed to be the path to blessing for Ishmael, the slave-child (Gen 17:20–27). They seem to be reasoning that if God chose to enter into a covenant with his people at Sinai, then the obligations that constituted that covenant had to be kept by anyone who wished to receive the blessing. Paul, however, argues that insisting upon such covenantal obligations would, in fact, invalidate the earlier covenant with Abraham (which has been fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice) and so make the promise to Abraham void (Gal 3:17–18). Once the “seed” has displayed supreme loyalty and is sacrificed, God keeps his promise and the blessings flow to the nations. What, then, was the purpose of the legal obligations laid upon Israel at Sinai? The answer, “because of transgressions”, is, as we shall see, part of Paul’s integration of the law into the wider scheme of God’s salvation-historical plans (Gal 3:19–25). We have seen that Paul mentions the existence of a mediator in order to highlight the disunity between God and Israel at the time of the giving of the law (Gal 3:20). Nevertheless, the Sinai covenant was not useless. It “was added on account of the transgressions until such time as the seed to whom it was promised should come” (Gal 3:19). In the purposes of God, this disunity between the people and God had an ultimately positive effect—to imprison everything under sin so that it would be clear that justification would be by faith, not by works (Gal 3:22–25). The law’s purpose was not opposed to the promise (Gal 3:21). It formalised and focused the curse on humanity (3:10), it highlighted sin, it made the distance between God and his people obvious, and it pointed to the inevitability of faith (3:19–24). But that purpose was limited to Israel’s national life, and it has been achieved. Now that Christ, the seed, has come and has fulfilled the covenant (and taken the curse), the “many nations” are not required to be a party to these (temporary) covenantal obligations. They are simply required to be immersed into the “one” seed, Christ, to be found “in Christ” by faith (3:26–27). However, by becoming “in Christ” by faith, they actually become the one “seed”, and so heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:28–29). This is “the blessing of Abraham coming about in Christ Jesus for the sake of the nations.” (Gal 3:14). In fact, if the Galatians do place themselves under the law, they are in grave danger because they are identifying themselves with the one part of salvation history that was associated unequivocally with the curse (Gal 3:10). The covenants with both Abraham and Israel, then, were instruments of international blessing. Abraham’s covenantal obedience foreshadows Christ’s sacrifice, and the covenant of law with Israel foreshadows the need for faith. The nations are blessed, not by entering Israel’s covenant with its obligations, but by trusting the seed who has fulfilled the covenant, and so becoming sons and heirs of God. Full bibliography The more immediate question in verse 17 is that of the status of the Sinai covenant. Paul’s opponents seem to have been arguing that the Gentiles could only be blessed if they joined the covenant people and submitted to the covenantal obligations.[1] After all, this seemed to be the path to blessing for Ishmael, the slave-child (Gen 17:20–27). They seem to be reasoning that if God chose to enter into a covenant with his people at Sinai, then the obligations that constituted that covenant had to be kept by anyone who wished to receive the blessing. Paul, however, argues that insisting upon such covenantal obligations would, in fact, invalidate the earlier covenant with Abraham (which has been fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice) and so make the promise to Abraham void (Gal 3:17–18). Once the “seed” has displayed supreme loyalty and is sacrificed, God keeps his promise and the blessings flow to the nations. What, then, was the purpose of the legal obligations laid upon Israel at Sinai? The answer, “because of transgressions”, is, as we shall see, part of Paul’s integration of the law into the wider scheme of God’s salvation-historical plans (Gal 3:19–25).
[1] Perhaps the attitude that we saw in Jubilees (see above), was present among Paul’s opponents. Here’s something I’d like to say:
Did I say that? From the Sola Panel
I was listening the other day to a satirical comedy show on British Radio. The presenter was making a point about human relationships. The bulk of his satirical piece consisted of a reading from Genesis 2:18-25, in full, from the King James Version of the Bible (“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him …”). He read it slowly and theatrically in a fake American accent. During the reading, the audience laughed uproariously. When the reading was finished, the skit was effectively over; the point was made. The show moved on to the next topic. What grieved me most about this piece wasn’t the presenter’s viewpoint on the particular issue under discussion. Nor was it even the fact that the Bible was being ridiculed. The saddest part of the skit was the fact that the presenter chose an American accent for his reading of the King James Version of the Bible. It’s not (I hasten to add) that I’ve got a prejudice against American accents; I myself spoke with a broad Californian twang up to age four. But why did this English presenter choose an American accent for his Bible reading? The King James Version of the Bible is, after all, a very English product. It was commissioned by a King of England, created by English scholars, and influenced, in a large part, by the English martyr William Tyndale. It is generally regarded as one of the greatest crowning achievements of English literature. Some even regard it as the greatest literary work of all time. The presenter could have chosen to read it with a voice sounding like a Shakespearian actor, for example—or an upper-class, holier-than-thou bishop. Then, at least, his ridicule of the Bible would have had some connection with its English heritage. Why on earth did he choose to read it with an American accent? I can only conclude that, in the view of the presenter and his audience (which consists of a substantial cross-section of well-educated Brits), the Bible is no longer something that belongs in Britain at all. This is the assumption behind the satire, and it’s the reason that an American accent for a Bible reading has instant comedic value. The Bible is not just seen as historical, archaic, sentimental or vaguely quaint; for a substantial proportion of British society, the Bible is seen as something over-the-top, crazy and, above all, foreign. The Bible is no longer at home here; it belongs across the Atlantic. This is, of course, a great testimony to the biblical faithfulness of many of our American brothers and sisters. But for British society, it is a great tragedy. On Thursday, the UK will elect a new parliament, and the results are very hard to predict. Please pray for the election and the resulting government. From all reports, all three major parties are trying to distance themselves from the Bible to one extent or another. There are particular ethical stances that are causing concern to many Christians here. Above all, please pray that the Bible itself—the word of God that brings eternal life, hope and peace through Jesus Christ—is not lost to the hearts and minds of this nation. Comments on the Sola PanelGalatians 3:20 is literally translated:
The word “one” can mean either “one (as opposed to many)”; or it can mean “united (as opposed to divided)”. What does it mean in this verse? And what does this verse have to do with Paul’s argument about the law and covenants (Gal 3:15-19)? (This post is part of a series) Galatians 3:20 verse has spawned a multitude of interpretations, but a common thread in most interpretations is the juxtaposition of plurality and singularity.[1] This is exacerbated by certain translations, which add a concept of plurality into the verse which isn’t there in the original (e.g. the ESV, “Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one”). Wright, for example, understands Galatians 3:20 to mean that God, being one, desires one worldwide covenantal family demarcated by faith, rather than a plurality of different families.[2] However, in normal Greek usage, the existence of a mediator (μεσίτης) usually implied a conflict or underlying disunity between two parties.[3] Hence it seems that Paul’s argument is not about plurality but disunity between Israel and God. This is backed up by the allusion to an important Old Testament verse. One of the foundational statements of the law was the Shema, with its tight indicative-imperative logic: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, The LORD is One (κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν). And you shall love the LORD your God with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with your whole strength” (Deut 6:4–5 LXX). The logic is that, because God is “one”, there must be “whole” undivided devotion to him. But this is precisely what had not happened at the time of the giving of the law (Exod 32–34). God was about to destroy Israel for her outright apostasy with the Golden Calf, so a mediator (Moses) was introduced to the covenant, and God’s glory was veiled to Israel. The existence of a mediator proved that God and Israel were not united. Israel was never going to be able to fulfil the promise of international blessing. From her very inception, Israel failed to display the blameless walk required of the seed as a prerequisite for this covenant (Gen 17:1). So Paul adds a further argument to his proof that Christ, not Israel, is the true obedient seed of Abraham, not by means of a semantic trick (cf. 3:16) but here from the Torah itself. [1] N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (London: T & T Clark, 1991) , 159. [2] Wright, Climax, 168–72. [3] Becker, NIDNTT 1:372–76; see also Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 378–79. Here’s a very insightful post from Lee Irons critiquing the theory that “righteousness” means “covenant faithfulness”. I’ll quote a sizeable chunk of Irons’ conclusions because they’re highly relevant to both of my series on righteousness and covenant:
|
||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Forget the Channel - All Rights Reserved |
||||
