Category Archives: Theology

Edward Taylor, Meditation 39.4

03 Tuesday May 2022

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Incarnation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Fifth Stanza

I have no plea mine Advocate to give.

What now? He’ll anvil arguments great store

Out of his flesh and blood to make me live.

O dear bought arguments: good pleas therefor.

Nails made of heavenly steel, more choice than gold

Drove home, well clenched, eternally will hold.

Notes:

Since a lawyer is limited by the facts of the case (attorneys’ pleas spring from the state/

The case is in), and since this case is so dire, they “knock me down to woe”, the poet has nothing to help:

I have no plea mine Advocate to give.

There is nothing particularly musical about this line: it is a plain statement of fact. And this leaves him with the wholly prosaic question:

What now?

The first line and-a-half of this stanza contain no clever image, interesting musical devices. It is just a clear statement of fact. But when we turn to the Advocate’s work, the stanza becomes “poetic”. This is an interesting rhetorical tactic by Taylor, increasing the rhetorical fireworks when it comes to the Advocate’s work.

How will the Advocate plead for the poet, when the facts are against the poet?

            He’ll anvil arguments great store

Out of his flesh and blood

The image striking: the argument will come from the Advocate’s own “flesh and blood”. Moreover, he will not merely take these arguments, they will be hammered like a blacksmith with iron at a furnace, He’ll anvil arguments.

The picture is grotesque and wonderful: how does not take an hammer and anvil to one’s own body? And yet it is out of the body of the Advocate that the defense is raised.

Here is a central mystery of the Christian claim. All human beings have a body which is ultimate derived from the body of Adam. All people are of one body: “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” Acts 17:26 (ESV) Thus, in both a representative and physical sense, all human beings are born “in Adam”.

The Son of God is “made flesh”. (John 1:14) Christ then lives a sinless life, and yet suffers the death allotted to all of Adam’s descendants. Being innocent, and being representative, he bears the weight of the judgment against sin: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” 1 Peter 2:24 (ESV) In the end he is vindicated (as evidenced by this resurrection, Romans 1:4). Christ becomes a new Adam. (Rom. 5:12-19) As raised, he stands as a new humanity.

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:42–49 (ESV) Much, much more could said on this point from the New Testament. But is without question the doctrine of the Apostles that the physical body of Christ in life, death, burial, and resurrection, becomes the plea for our salvation: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV) The way in which that life of Christ becomes our life is a further discussion. The point here is that Taylor says nothing but what the Bible teaches. In a roughly contemporary work, William Gurnal uses an image which reminds of the language here in Taylor:

“He lived and died for you; he will live and die with you; for mercy and tenderness to his soldiers, none like him. Trajan, it is said, rent his clothes to bind up his soldiers’ wounds; Christ poured out his blood as balm to heal his saints’ wounds; tears off his flesh to bind them up.”

William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 6.

These arguments made from the body of the advocate bring life, “to make me live.” As Paul writes: “But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” Romans 4:23–25 (ESV)

These arguments come at great cost, “O dear bought arguments”. They will also work, they are “good pleas.”

Ship’s Nail, courtesy Neil Cummings

The final couplet makes an in ironic use of nails:

Nails made of heavenly steel, more choice than gold

Drove home, well clenched, eternally will hold.

At one level, “nails” references the strength of this argument: They are “heavenly steel.” They are more precious that gold. And they have been fit so well, that the argument will be valid for all eternity: “Drove home, well clenched, eternally will hold.”

The final line contains two pauses, which slows down and underscores the proposition raised: This argument will stand.

The use of nails as the image for the argument then alludes to the basis for the argument: Christ’s sacrificial death. He was nailed to the tree, and in so doing, our sins were nailed to the tree. In this seeming loss, there was victory:

11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Colossians 2:11–15 (ESV)

Thomas Boston, The Crook in the Lot.6 (the sovereignty of God)

29 Saturday Jan 2022

Posted by in Sovereignty, Thomas Boston

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

IV.       HOW IS GOD INVOLVED IN THE PLACING OF THE CROOK IN THE LOT?

Boston provides the following outline for the next section of his work:

Having seen the crook itself, we are, in the next place, to consider of God’s making it. And here is to be shown, (1.) That it is of God’s making. (2.) How it is of his making. (3.) Why he makes it.

A.        God lays the crook in the lot

First, That the crook in the lot, whatever it is, is of God’s making, appears from these three considerations

1.         The crook follows as a “penal evil”

The crook, however it comes, is one sense always a “penal evil.” By this Boston means that it comes as a “punishment or affliction.” A crook is by definition something which hurts, it causes harm in terms of its experience (even if the eventual outcome results in something better).

First, It cannot be questioned, but the crook in the lot, considered as the crook, is a penal evil, whatever it is for the matter thereof: that is, whether the thing in itself, its immediate cause and occasion be sinful or not, it is certainly a punishment or affliction.

This does not mean there is a one-to-one correspondence between what we suffer and some particular conduct on our behalf.  We cannot look at someone who suffers a lingering disease and saw: this person clearly committed a great sin. This is what Boston means by “whether the thing in itself, its immediate cause and occasion be sinful or not.”

Jesus specifically rejects such thinking:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Luke 13:1–5 (ESV)

What then could possibly be the connection between the falling tower and punishment, if those particular men were not uniquely deserving of death? All death comes as the result of sin’s presence in the world. All of us have been conceived under a sentence of death. To be born is to be brought into a world where the only exit will be death.

Death is the punishment which God has brought upon the world for the presence of sin. And in that sentence of death come all of the lesser trials and losses. God takes complete ownership of sentence. Thus, if God is the only ultimate author of the sentence (God being the only one capable of enforcing the judgment), and God takes credit for such being in the world, and if such is in the world, then God must be the ultimate responsible party:

Now, as it may be, as such holily and justly brought on us, by our sovereign Lord and judge, so he expressly claims the doing or making of it, Amos 3:6. “Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” Wherefore, since there can be no penal evil, but of God’s making, and the crook in the lot is such an evil, it is necessarily concluded to be of God’s making.

At this point, someone will ask, yes but what of evil brought upon one in which the pain brought is the result of an actual sin? How is God responsible for a murder? That is an issue which Boston will address later in this work. But that is a real and significant question to be considered.

2.         As a general matter, God is sovereign over all that takes place

The Scripture is plain that God is sovereign over all that takes place in human life:

It is evident from the scripture-doctrine of divine providence, that God brings about every man’s lot and all the parts thereof. He sits at the helm of human affairs, and turns them about whithersoever he listeth [he desires or he pleases]

“Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven and in earth, in the seas and all deep places,” Psal. 135:6. There is not any thing whatsoever befals us without his over-ruling hand.

This must be grasped:

With reference to the government of Providence, it is said of God, that “he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth.” Even insensible matter is under his control. Fire and hail, snow and vapour, and stormy wind, fulfil his word: and with reference to intelligent agents, we are told that he maketh the most refractory, even the wrath of man, to praise him, and the remainder of wrath he restrains. The whole Bible exhibits Jehovah as so ordering the affairs of individuals, and of nations, as to secure the grand purpose he had in view in creating the world,—viz., the promotion of his own glory, in the salvation of a multitude which no man can number, of all nations, and kindreds, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues. One of the most prominent distinctions between divine revelation and ordinary history is, that when the same general events are narrated, the latter exhibits—(it is its province so to do—it is not able indeed to do more,) the agency of man, the former, the agency of God. Profane history exhibits the instruments by which Jehovah works; the finger of divine revelation points to the unseen but almighty hand which wields and guides the instrument, and causes even Herod and Pontius Pilate, together with the Jews and the people of Israel, to do what the hand and the counsel of God determined before to be done.—George Payne, in “Lectures on Christian Theology,” 1850.

C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: Psalms 120-150, vol. 6 (London; Edinburgh; New York: Marshall Brothers, n.d.), 194.

Boston underscores this point with the observation that God’s providence is comprehensive when it comes to our life:

The same providence that brought us out of the womb, bringeth us to, and fixeth us in, the condition and place allotted for us, by him who hath determined the times and the bounds of our habitation, Acts 17:26. It over-rules the smallest and most casual things about us, such as hairs of our head falling on the ground, Matth. 10:29, 30. A lot cast into the lap, Prov. 16:33.

There is a profoundly difficult aspect of God’s sovereignty which concerns our decisions and our will. It is one thing for God be sovereign over the rainfall and the sunshine, but is God sovereign over our decisions:

Yea, the free acts of our will, whereby we choose for ourselves, for, even “the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water,” Prov. 21:1. And the whole steps we make, and which others make in reference to us; for “the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps,” Jer. 10:23.

And this applies to all sorts of human actions:

And this, whether these steps causing the crook to be deliberate and sinful ones, such as Joseph’s brethren selling him into Egypt; or whether they be undesigned, such as manslaughter purely casual, as when one hewing wood kills his neighbour with the head of the axe slipping from the helve, Deut. 19:5.

Boston does not unwrap the quandary of God’s providence and human decision making not being the actions of a puppet. But he does begin to open the puzzle as to how God could be involved in sinful actions:

For there is a holy and wise providence that governs the sinful and the heedless actions of men, as a rider doth a lame horse, of whose halting, not he, but the horse’s own lameness, is the true and proper cause; wherefore, in the former of these cases, God is said to have sent Joseph into Egypt, Gen. 45:7. And, in the latter, to deliver one into his neighbour’s hand. Exod. 21:13.

This then raises the confusing question of how could God be sovereign over all, and God order that sin not be committed, and also be sovereign over sin (even if it is permitted and not mandated)? While Boston will spend more time on this question, below, the unwrapping of that riddle is not his aim here. A useful article to begin wrestling with that question can be found here: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god

3.         God’s providence is sure

The decisions of God are not potential or suggestive. God’s will is certain and his decrees unchangeable:

Lastly, God hath, by an eternal decree, immoveable as mountains of brass, (Zech. 6:1.) appointed the whole of every one’s lot, the crooked parts thereof as well as the straight. By the same eternal decree, whereby the high and low parts of the earth, the mountains and the valleys, were appointed, are the heights and depths, the prosperity and adversity in the lot of the inhabitants thereof, determined; and they are brought about, in time, in a perfect agreeableness thereto.

If God’s will is set and established before I am even more, then this crook has been laid in my lot from prior to my existence. It was here before I came upon it as I moved through time. It is as if one were hiking through the mountains and came upon a ravine without a bridge. The ravine was there before I began my hike. It could never have not been there when I came to that place:

The mystery of providence, in the government of the world, is, in all the parts thereof, the building reared up of God, in exact conformity to the plan in his decree, “who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will,” Eph. 1:11. So that there is never a crook in one’s lot, but may be run up to this original. Hereof Job piously sets us an example, in his own case, Job 23:13, 14. “He is in one mind, and who can turn him? And what his soul desireth, even that he doth. For he performed the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.”

4.         Consideration

This is not an easy matter to assimilate into one’s thinking. The argument from harm, that a good God could not possibly permit harm (and thus either God cannot prevent it, or God is not good, or there is no God), seems to be a baseline assumption of human beings.  When we pray that God remove a trouble, I know from experience (my own and others) and that we seem to believe that such trouble may have come as a surprise to God.

That it is God’s will that such trouble come upon us, is a difficult thing to understand.  Especially when we also consider promises such as “all things work together for good.” What sort of good entails me watching my child die?

Perhaps our trouble is that we fundamentally misunderstand ourselves, our world, our place in the world, God, and how these things go together.

It is a trite analogy, but it may begin to open a door as to how to think about such things as our trials: A small child cannot understand that candy which tastes good is not good for you. That broccoli which does not taste good is good for you. That the pain of a vaccination is good because it prevents a disease. And so on. Children simply lack the experience and ability to comprehend the incomprehensible things we tell them, things which are true.

If such happens between us and our children, then how much more would there be limits on our understanding compared to an infinite, eternal, all wise God? Think of how little we actually know about what God is doing with creation. Yes, we are not completely ignorant. But think for a moment of how little you can really understand about hints such as:

9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 3:9–10 (ESV). The glib answer “the angels are watching” does not begin to plumb the mystery hinted at here.

Richard Sibbes, The Backsliding Sinner 4.3

31 Friday Dec 2021

Posted by in Faith, Faith, Richard Sibbes, Richard Sibbes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

John Street (director of the MABC program at TMU) when teaching on the change which should take place in the Christian refers to the passage in Ephesians 4, where Paul writes a thief must stop stealing and then get a job and give to others. To merely stop stealing is to be a thief between jobs. But to work and give is to be something new. John Owen explains that the death of sin is to abound in grace:

The first is, How doth the Spirit mortify sin?

I answer, in general, three ways:—

[1.] By causing our hearts to abound in grace and the fruits that are contrary to the flesh, and the fruits thereof and principles of them.

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 19.

Sibbes makes a similar point about faith. It is not sufficient to merely stop trusting in the creature, we must put our trust in God:

Obs. That it is not sufficient to disclaim affiance in the creature, but we must pitch that affiance aright upon God.

We must cease one thing and begin another. Our faith will be somewhere. If we take it off of the creature and do not place it upon God, we will be like the soul where a demon has been driven out only to return with others worse than himself. Thus, the Scripture commands us repeatedly to take our trust off of the creature and to place it upon God:

We must not only take it off where it should not be placed, but set it where it should be. ‘Cease from evil, and learn to do well,’ Isa. 1:16, 17. Trust not in the creature. ‘Cease from man,’ as the prophet saith, ‘whose breath is in his nostrils,’ Isa. 2:22; ‘Commit thy ways to God, trust in him,’ Ps. 37:5. 

He then makes an argument from common grace. We can read in many heathen authors the reasonable argument that we must stop trusting in the creature. The world will disappoint us. It reminds me of the Fire Sermon of Buddha, ““Everything, monks, is burning. What, monks, is everything that is burning? The eye, monks, is burning, form is burning, eye-consciousness is burning, eye-contact is burning. The feeling that arises dependent on eye-contact, whether pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral, that also is burning. 

With what is it burning? It is burning with the fire of passion, the fire of hatred, the fire of delusion. I declare that it is burning with the fire of birth, decay, death, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despair.” 

He can see the vanity of the creature, but he then can offer no solution beyond rejecting creation. 

This much can be seen without grace:

The heathen, by the light of nature, knew this, that for the negative there is no trusting in the creature, which is a vain thing. They could speak wonderful wittily* and to purpose of these things, especially the Stoics. They could see the vanity of the creature. But for the positive part, where to place their confidence, that they were ignorant in. And so for the other part here, ‘Neither will we say any more to the works of our hands, Ye are our gods.’ Idolaters can see the vanity of false gods well enough. 

But this rejection is insufficient; it is not salvation:

It is not enough therefore to rest in the negative part. A negative Christian is no Christian; 

There must be a movement to trust in God

Oh! such make religion nothing but a matter of opinion, of canvassing an argument, &c. But it is another manner of matter, a divine power exercised upon the soul, whereby it is transformed into the obedience of divine truth, and moulded into it. So that there must be a positive as well as a negative religion; a cleaving to God as well as a forsaking of idols.

* That is, ‘with wit’ = wisdom.—G.

Romans 12, How to Live Together, 5.5

19 Sunday Dec 2021

Posted by in Church Conflict, Incarnation, Romans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The Incarnation

5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, 

                        “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, 

but a body have you prepared for me; 

            6           in burnt offerings and sin offerings 

you have taken no pleasure. 

            7           Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, 

as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’ ” 

Hebrews 10:5–7.

There is a tendency among human beings to either deny there is a soul, or to deny the body matters and the spirit is all. But the Scripture will have none of that.

The importance of the human being is seen when consider the most spiritual topics, God. While God does not have a body like a man; the Son of God became incarnate as a man (while in manner being degraded in any manner as God). The Incarnation is a mystery beyond all mysteries. But is also the basis of how we must understand all other things:

The incarnation of God, therefore, is the supreme mystery at the center of our Christian confession, and no less at the center of all reality. Consequently, all conceptions of reality that fail to see and savor that all things hold together in Christ, and that he is preeminent in all things, can never be anything but abstract conceptions of virtual realities—that is, invariably hollow and ultimately vacuous concepts pulled away from reality.

John C. Clark and Marcus Peter Johnson, The Incarnation of God: The Mystery of the Gospel as the Foundation of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 12.

There are many things which could be said of the Incarnation, but one thing which must be understood is the profound importance of the human body. To battle on our behalf, it was first necessary for the Son of God to have the body of a human being, and that the human body was the location of that conflict. Consider this verse:

14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, [he shares our nature]

that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, [he destroys death from the position of a human body]

Hebrews 2:14. Think of how the Scripture speaks of our Savior. His announcement into this world is an announcement of being born a human being:

30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 

Luke 1:30–33.  Jesus is born. He is wrapped in cloth. He is laid in a manager – and at the end of his life he will again be wrapped in cloth and this time laid in a tomb. 

The crucifixion is the killing of his body. And the resurrection is the resurrection of his body.  And he is Ascended, reigning forever in a body.

The proof of the Resurrection is that his body is no longer in the tomb:

5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” 

Matthew 28:5–7. When he proves to the Disciples he has risen, it is the proof of his body:

24 Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” 

26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” 

John 20:24–29. That body is the residence of all our blessing:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

Ephesians 1:3. Indeed our salvation is bound upon with the identification of our body with his:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrectionlike his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Romans 6:1–11. Our life is a participation in the life of Christ, in his death, in his burial, in his resurrection.  

The presentation of our bodies in a living sacrifice is premised upon this union with Christ. We can offer no sacrifice apart from him:

24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. 

Hebrews 9:24–28. The sacrifice of his body is the only sacrifice for sin; a sacrifice never to be repeated. It is a sacrifice rendered “once.” 

We can only understand the sacrifice of our body in light of the sacrifice of his body and our union to that sacrifice. 

Indeed, it is in our union to Christ, a union which is not merely some intellectual proposition, but a sort of union which involves the body of our Ascended Incarnate Lord and our body is the premise of our sacrifice:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” 

John 14:6 We cannot offer something to the Father but in the life of the Son. We know the Father in knowing the Son. “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” John 14:9. Now these are deep waters in which it is very easy to get lost and drown. For our purposes we need merely assert that our approach to God is only in Jesus Christ, not around him. 

Jesus has made a way for his by taking our nature, by being found in a body which was offered as a sacrifice – and which was received for the forgiveness of sin. We participate in that life, that sacrifice, that resurrection. To participate in that life entails a life our body.  

What you must understand, the human body is the battlefield upon which God defeated his enemies. We participate in that victory in the identification of our life in this body with the life of the Incarnate Son of God. This identification is so great, that the Church, the sum of the redeemed are referred as the Body of Christ. 

The logic of Paul’s argument of how we are to live—and that manner of life is the nature of the “living sacrifice” commanded—is wholly premised upon our identification in the body of Christ. 

The Incarnation makes the life of the Church possible and is the basis for that life.

Seeing more clearly how the life of our body is joined up with the life of Jesus will be the next point.

Edward Taylor, Meditation 36.8, What a strange, strange thing am I

11 Saturday Dec 2021

Posted by in Assurance, Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

But am I thine? Oh! What strange thing’s in me?

Enriched thus by thy legacy? Yet find

When one small twig’s broke off, the breach should be

Such an enfeebling thing upon my mind.

Then take a pardon from thy store, and twist

It in my soul for help. ‘Twill not be missed.

Having affirmed that God is filled with a liberality which the world cannot contain, he turns to himself again and ask, am I thine?

This may seem logically erroneous, because he seems to have resolved that issue previously. But to think in this manner fails to understand the psychology of repentance which Taylor displays in this passage. He does not doubt either the goodness of God or the depth of his sinfulness. He confesses both with elaborate attention. 

The question is whether that goodness in God belongs to him.

The question of assurance has been a dogged question in Christian theology. There have been debates about whether it should even be something permitted as a concept absent some direct revelation from heaven. 

Protestant theology through Luther and Calvin affirms the rightness of a sense of assurance and thereafter developed theological explanations for assurance. Puritan theology, in particular, gave profound attention to the question of assurance. 

We could consider assurance from two perspectives: the matter observed objectively as a doctrine; and the matter observed subjectively as a matter of self-examination. 

Taken from either direction Taylor’s subjective experience, struggling  with assurance while faced with his own sense of sin is coherent with Puritan theology. Two examples from the vast corpus may help support this proposition:

“(2.) When assurance is actually stronger than diffidence, and doth certainly prevail against distracting fears, then it is to be accounted certain assurance, though it be still imperfect.—The truth and the degree of a believer’s assurance doth hold proportion to the truth and degree of his grace; and by this proportion of one to the other they do very much illustrate each other. Thus, First: There is an analogy between grace and assurance, in this, that as grace may be true, although it be not perfect, so may assurance be true assurance when imperfect. Again: As where sin reigns there is no grace, so where doubting reigns there is no assurance; but as when grace prevails, it is accounted true grace, so when assurance prevails over doubts, it is to be reckoned true assurance. Lastly. Where grace is perfect without sin, (as in heaven,) there assurance will be perfect without all doubt, and not till then.”

James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 6 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 381. And John Owen:

“Self-condemnation and abhorrency do very well consist with gospel justification and peace. Some men have no peace, because they have that without which it is impossible they should have peace. Because they cannot but condemn themselves, they cannot entertain a sense that God doth acquit them. But this is the mystery of the gospel, which unbelief is a stranger unto; nothing but faith can give a real subsistence unto these things in the same soul, at the same time. It is easy to learn the notion of it, but it is not easy to experience the power of it. For a man to have a sight of that within him which would condemn him, for which he is troubled, and at the same time to have a discovery of that without him which will justify him, and to rejoice therein, is that which he is not led unto but by faith in the mystery of the gospel. We are now under a law for justification which excludes all boasting, Rom. 3:27; so that though we have joy enough in another, yet we may have, we always have, sufficient cause of humiliation in ourselves. The gospel will teach a man to feel sin and believe righteousness at the same time. Faith will carry heaven in one hand and hell in the other; showing the one deserved, the other purchased. A man may see enough of his own sin and folly to bring “gehennam è cœlo,”—a hell of wrath out of heaven; and yet see Christ bring “cœlum ex inferno,”—a heaven of blessedness out of a hell of punishment. And these must needs produce very divers, yea, contrary effects and operations in the soul; and he who knows not how to assign them their proper duties and seasons must needs be perplexed. The work of self-condemnation, then, which men in these depths cannot but abound with, is, in the disposition of the covenant of grace, no way inconsistent with nor unsuited unto justification and the enjoyment of peace in the sense of it. There may be a deep sense of sin on other considerations besides hell. David was never more humbled for sin than when Nathan told him it was forgiven. And there may be a view of hell as deserved, which yet the soul may know itself freed from as to the issue.”

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 547.

This struggle with one’s faith seeking assurance was a matter not uncommon among the Puritans. The whole could be a matter of mere morbid self-introspection leading to despair unless a clear eye is kept upon the absolutely graciousness of God.

A key to seeing this in Taylor’s poem is the use of the word “strange.” When he looks at himself he calls himself a “strange strange thing.” His strangeness in that instance is willingness to sin and lack of hatred for his sin. But here he sees something strange – but it is come from God:

                        What strange thing’s in me?

Enriched thus by thy legacy?

In himself he is strange to not love God more. And here he sees a strange work of God to enrich him by God’s grace.

I must admit I am not quite sure of his reference here:

                                    Yet find

When one small twig’s broke off, the breach should be

Such an enfeebling thing upon my mind.

I don’t know what he means by a twig being broken off. In the next lines he will speak to how little he will be asking from God (because God’s well of grace is so great), and that could be a possible reference to this “small twig”. 

It could be that the broken twig is his own conscious introspection, because that does seem to be “enfeebling.” But as it stands, I am not sure of Taylor’s purpose with these two lines.

The remainder is clear enough, however:

Then take a pardon from thy store, and twist

It in my soul for help. ‘Twill not be missed.

The pardon will not be missed on God’s part, because God has such great store of grace. He asks that God take a pardon and then “twist in my soul for help.”

This is striking language: He is not asking for a pardon which does not remedy. He is not saying forgive me as much as change me: forgive and change my life. 

The pardon is ineffective if it were merely a legal declaration: It is that: God does objectively forgive, but that forgiveness is transformative. 

Bonhoffer’s language of cheap grace comes at this concept from another direction but has the same basic aim: The effect of grace is not merely outside the human subject. It is something which happens to us; it transforms in forgiving us.

The whole of this transformation goes well beyond this note, but it must be understood in part to get a purchase on Taylor’s thought. The reason for our irrationality is our distance from God. Our trouble is that we are wrong with God. 

We do not function correctly except in relationship to God. But sin creates a breach in that relationship and renders us a “strange strange thing.” When God’s grace remedies that breach, it creates a “strange thing” in us, because it transforms us. We come into relationship. 

In that relationship, the introspection and self-diagnosis of sin does not destroy the human because it drives us to Christ and forgiveness. 

That is the key difference between bare guilt and conviction. Guilt is a sight of our failure. Conviction is a sight sin which drives to us to Christ. The Puritans referred to guilt as “legal” but that drive to Christ as “gospel.” 

Edward Taylor, Meditation 36.4 What strange strange am I

11 Thursday Nov 2021

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Grace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

But did I say, I wonder Lord, to spy

Thyself so kind, and I so vile yet thine

I eat my word, and wonder more that I

No viler am, though all o’re vile do shine

As full of sin I am, as egg of meat

Yet find thy golden rod my sin to treat.

Nay did I say, I wonder t’see thy store

Of kindness, yet me thus vile with all

I now unsay my say, I wonder more

Thou dash me not to pieces with thy maul

But in the bed, Lord, of thy goodness lies

The reason of’t, which makes my wonder rise.

Summary:

These two stanzas cover the same problem from different perspectives. He takes issue with himself over his complaint that he “vile” despite the grace of God. He has asked, If I belong to God’s and God’s grace is effacious, then why am I not more holy?

He turns that question on its head. First, says, rather than wonder why I am so vile; I so should rather ask the question why I am not worse. Second, the real mystery here is not my sin but God’s mercy? Why would he be merciful to me?

Prosody:

To this point, the poem has not been very lyrical. Yet with these two stanzas we see a marked turn in the attention paid to sound. Of particular note is the long I repeated; most noticeably in the I-VILE. 

But did I say, I wonder Lord, to spy

Thyself so kind, and I so vile yet thine

I eat my word, and wonder more that I

No viler am, though all o’re vile do shine

As full of sin I am, as egg of meat

Yet find thy golden rod my sin to treat.

Nay did I say, I wonder t’see thy store

Of kindness, yet me thus vile with all

I now unsay my say, I wonder more

Thou dash me not to pieces with thy maul

But in the bed, Lord, of thy goodness lies

The reason of’t, which makes my wonder rise

Notes

But did I say, the parallel will be made with the next stanza, “Nay did I say”. By asking this question twice, he is calling into question his own self-understanding. There is a movement of thought as he holds up the potential responses to his wonder at his own sin. 

 I wonder Lord, to spy

Thyself so kind, and I so vile yet thine

While the verb “spy” may be attributed solely to the rhyme, the emphasis of the verb is on scrutiny and attention. Since the whole of the poem is a psychological and theological investigation of himself, to spy this out is appropriate.

I eat my word, This brings us to the next parallel between the stanza: He will “eat”, then “unsay”  the word he has said. There is a sort of repentance in this, he looks to himself and realizes the error.

and wonder more that I

No viler am, 

This will parallel 

Nay did I say, I wonder t’see thy store

Of kindness

He wonders at himself and at God. But now rather than wondering at the presence of any sin, he wonders at the lack sin! Why am I not even more vile than I presently appear? The parallel then helps with the understand: I am not more vile because the store of God’s grace is so extensive.

The mystery of grace has not transformed: Why am I not perfect if grace “works?” Instead, look at the mystery of grace that he has restrained so much sin.

though all o’re vile do shine This is a fascinating line, particularly in the context of Taylor’s standard imagery. Bright, shine, light are all characteristic he applies to God; while to himself and sin it is a matter of dark and shadow. But here, his vileness shines! The idea of sinfulness so extraordinary that it “lights-up” is strking. 

As full of sin I am, as egg of meat

And a parallel:

yet me thus vile with all

Yet find thy golden rod my sin to treat.

And the the parallel with the second stanza:

I now unsay my say, I wonder more

Thou dash me not to pieces with thy maul

The “rod” would be a rod of correction. But the correction is not destruction. As a side note, too much preaching aims at bare guilt, which is a psychological state of feeling bad for having done something wrong. The trouble with guilt is that standing alone it goes nowhere: Okay, I’m guilty. Since the feeling is bad, one merely tries to overcome the bad feeling. What is needed is repentance. It is the kindness of God which moves us to repentance: “God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance.” Romans 2:4

Look here at Taylor realizes:

Why doesn’t God destroy me? The goodness of God (Romans 2:4 in the KJV uses the word “goodness” rather than “kindness” as the English translation of chréston)

But in the bed, Lord, of thy goodness lies

The reason of’t, 

The addition of a bed of goodness creates a certain peace and restfulness to the whole which is remarkable. 

And now the wonder shifts. At the first, he wondered at his own sin. Now he wonders at the goodness, the kindness, the grace of God:

which makes my wonder rise.

An argument for freedom of conscience, 1661 (part 1, with comments)

28 Wednesday Jul 2021

Posted by in law, Politics, Theology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The following is a remarkable document from 1661, which was presented onto Parliament in England and which seeks for religious tolerance for everyone. Moreover, it is supported in points by statements made by the Stuart kings (James & Charles) It was presented within one year of restoration of Charles II in May 1600. The men who published the document were Quakers. 

The document is written in the form of a series of short propositions. Following the propositions, I will provide a brief comment and try to follow the movement of their (often ingenious) argument. 

I have also modernized the spelling in places.

The title page reads:

Liberty of Conscience ASSERTED, And SEVERAL REASONS RENDRED, Why no Outward Force, nor Imposition, ought to be used in Matters of Faith and Religion: With several SAYINGS, Collected from the Speeches and Writings of KING JAMES, And KING CHARLES the First.

John Crook

Samuel Fisher

Francis Howgill

Richard Hubberthorne.


Acts 5. 38, 39.

Now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this Counsel, or this Work, be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found fighters against God.

This was delivered into the hands of the Members of both Houses of Parliament, the last day of the Third Month, 1661.

London, Printed for Robert Wilson, in Martins Le Grand, 1661.

Liberty of Conscience Asserted, &c.

LIBERTY of CONSCIENCE ought to be allowed in the days of the Gospel in the free Exercise of it to God-ward (without Compulsion) in all things relating to His Worship, for these Reasons following.

Comment:  The liberty asserted is liberty of conscience with respect to religious practice. The argument is premised upon specifically Christian considerations.  There is an interesting phrase, “in the days of the Gospel.” It is unclear whether the authors are referencing all of the time after Christ, or whether they mean a specific period within recent history. If so, the reference would be post-reformation, and likely post-Mary with a knowledge of the Marian suppression of Protestantism. 

1. Because the General and Universal Royal Law of Christ Commands it Matt. 7. 12. All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and Prophets. That which every man would have and receive from another, he ought by Christ’s Rule to give and allow it to another. But every man is willing to have the Liberty of his own Conscience, Therefore ought to allow it to another.

Comment: Here they give a ground for freedom of conscience: (1) It is grounded in a command of Christ. They define this command as “general” and “royal”. By general, it is a law which would apply to all persons and all places. By being “royal” it would be supreme. In addition, the phrase “royal law” coupled to “liberty” is used in James 2:

James 2:8–13 (AV) 

8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. 

While the text does deal specifically with the point raised, linguistically the combination of “royal law” and “law of liberty” is suggestive.

(2) This is an argument which goes to the moral weight of being a human being: You must be protected in your freedom of conscience because you are a human being. This remains true even if I believe you are wrong. 

This is remarkable change from what has been the case in much of human history. When it comes to religion, the belief has typically been that the religious coherence of everyone in the group is necessary to protect the group. If you antagonize a god, we all may be in danger. 

Notice also that your practice may be gravely offensive to me. 

2. Because, No man can persuade the Conscience of another, either what God is, or how he should be worshipped, but by the Spirit, which God hath given to instruct man in the ways of Truth.

Comment: The rationale here is again explicitly Christian. This one takes a somewhat different tack: Rather than argue from the dignity of a human being, this one argues from the work of God. Rather than seeing religion as merely the outward working of a rite, or a publicly approved confession, it is a primarily an inward matter. 

3. Because, All Obedience or Service that is obtained by force, is for fear of Wrath, and not from Love, nor for Conscience sake; and therefore will but continue so long as that fear or force abides upon them.

Comment: This again argues to the fact of subjective conversion: You can make someone engage in a behavior or say as word. What is the value of that? You have not really gained their heart or mind. As soon as they can escape the tyranny, they will. 

4. Because, That by forcing, No man can make a Hypocrite to be a true Believer; but on the contrary, many may be made Hypocrites.

Comment: This turns the religious conformity argument on its head. To be a hypocrite is to falsely profess a faith. You do not really believe X, you are mere pretender. Well then, if you goal is coerce conduct in public, you can do so. But, you cannot argue that you giving honor to God because such conduct can only have the effect of creating one is in greater rebellion against God.

This raises the stakes: Are you truly seeking to honor God or to obtain political power? You can get one, but not other by coercion.

5. Because, That in all forced Impositions upon men’s Consciences there is something of the Wrath of man exercised, which works not the Righteousness of God, but rather begets Enmity in the heart one towards another.

Comment: This argument takes up the argument of point 4 and then enlarges the sphere of sin. You not only make the man coerced a worse sinner, you are actually sinning yourself when you coerce another. This argument comes from James 1:20, “for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” You are provoking anger in another which is sinful in you. Thus, you cannot coerce religion in the name of God without becoming the enemy of God.

You are also increasing the sum-total of sin by creating enmity between men. 

6. Because, that by forcing any thing upon men’s Consciences, as to matters of Faith and Worship, many are hardened in their hearts against the things imposed; when as otherwise, through Love and gentle Instructionstheir hearts might be persuaded to willing Obedience.

Comment: Continuing in the line of argument that you are actually working against God in your attempt to force religious compliance, he uses the argument that forcing another results in their being unwilling to hear your case. Perhaps you are making a good point, but who will hear when your crushing their liberty?

This creates an interesting move in this overall argument. In point 2 above, he states that true faith will be ultimately a work of God. Therefore, being a work of God, how can someone be persuaded without compromising God’s sovereignty in the work? A resolution of this conflict can be seen by understanding that there are matters upon Christian must agree: those are matters determined by the Spirit of God that God is and is to be worshipped. But, there may be matters which are more open to variation. This will followed upon in point 8, below.

7. Because, That Persecution for Conscience contradicteth Christ’s Charge, Matt. 13. who bids, that the Tares(or false worshippers) be suffered to grow together in the Field(or World) till the Harvest (or End of the World.)

8. Because, Force is contrary to the End for which it is pretended to be used (viz.) the preservation and safety of the Wheat, which End is not answered by Persecution,because the Wheat is in danger to be plucked up thereby, as Christ saith.

Comment: These two points should be seen together. In Matthew 13, Jesus tells a parable of a farmer who planted his field in wheat. In the evening, an enemy also planted seeds of a plant which looked almost identical to wheat. As the plants grow, it can be difficult if not impossible to tell the difference.  The farmer forbids his servants from try to separate the wheat and the weeds so that they don’t accidentally destroy the crop. 

Jesus says this is the nature of the Church: it will contains wheat and weeds. It will be very difficult to tell them apart. Therefore, not until the end will there be a separation of the two. The Church will always involve this confusion. If you, even if you are right, seek to tear out every weed may find that you are also tearing out wheat. 

The argument is again: You cannot coerce another’s conscience as a Christian without contradicting your claim to be a Christian.

Thinking of the World in the Light of the Knowledge of God’s Providence

27 Tuesday Jul 2021

Posted by in John Calvin, Providence, Psalms

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

In commenting upon Psalm 16:8, “I have set the Lord always before me, because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken” Calvin writes

We must look to him with other eyes than those of the flesh, for we shall seldom be able to perceive him unless we elevate our minds above the world; and faith prevents us from turning our back upon him. The meaning, therefore, is, that David kept his mind so intently fixed upon the providence of God, as to be fully persuaded, that whenever any difficulty or distress should befall him, God would be always at hand to assist him. He adds, also, continually, to show us how he constantly depended upon the assistance of God, so that, amidst the various conflicts with which he was agitated, no fear of danger could make him turn his eyes to any other quarter than to God in search of succour. And thus we ought so to depend upon God as to continue to be fully persuaded of his being near to us, even when he seems to be removed to the greatest distance from us. When we shall have thus turned our eyes towards him, the masks and the vain illusions of this world will no longer deceive us.

This is an interesting thing: God is the context in which I understand the world and it’s dealings. He is not claiming an esoteric knowledge, because he is looking at world in terms of providence not a prophetic word. It is an interpretative presupposition through which to understand what is taking place.

This makes sense then of how we can continue to believe God is directing events even when God seems absent. If we begin with the presupposition of God’s Providence at all times, we can persist in the confidence even when things do seem lacking in control. It is a sort of mental habit.

This is not to say he is here denying the work of God for it is God who is acting through Providence and God maintains the discipline of the thought and its resulting effect, “he constantly depended upon the assistance of God.”

Edward Taylor, Meditation 35.4

03 Saturday Jul 2021

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Jonathan Edwards, Joy, Sanctification, Sanctifictation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Stanza Six

Oh, that the sweets of all these windings, spout

Might, and these influences strait and cross

Upon my soul, to make thy shine break out

That Grace might in get and get out my dross!

My soul up locked then in this clod of dust

Would lock up in’t all heavenly joys most just.

Summary: While the expression become a bit tangled in places, this stanza is a prayer that God would work out all the contrary and difficult means of providence for God’s glory, the poet’s sanctification, and ultimate joy.

This is major theme of Christian theology and was a particular note among the Puritans: Trial, Sanctification, Joy.

aluminum dross processing machine - YouTube

Note

The principal allusion which stands behind this stanza seems to be 1 Peter:

1 Peter 1:3–9 (AV) 

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 

6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: 7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. 

The elements of this passage which appear in the stanza are as follows:

That Grace might in get and get out my dross

There are difficult and contrary aspects to life:

all these windings, spout

Might, and these influences strait and cross

Upon my soul, to make thy shine break out

Peter: ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations

The purpose of trials is sanctification:

That Grace might in get and get out my dross!

Peter: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

The particular image of God removing “dross” is found in 

Proverbs 25:4 (AV)

4 Take away the dross from the silver, and there shall come forth a vessel for the finer.

Isaiah 1:25 (AV) 

And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross.

The image of “dross” refers to the process of purifying melt. The “dross” is the impurity mixed with the ore.

This concept is a commonplace in Puritan theology: As Thomas Watson writes, “But how shall we attain to heart-purity?..[By] fire, Acts 2:3. Fire is of a purifying nature; it doth refine and cleanse metals; it separates the dross from the gold; the Spirit of God in the heart doth refine and sanctify it; it burns up the dross of sin.”

Thomas Watson: “The goldsmith loves his gold when it is in the furnace, and so does God love his children when he places them in the crucible of affliction; it is only to separate the dross, not to consume the gold. “Whom he loveth, he loveth to the end.”

The end is joy:

Oh, that the sweets of all

My soul up locked then in this clod of dust

Would lock up in’t all heavenly joys most just.

Jonathan Edwards, the son of Taylor’s fellow pastor, was to write in Religious Affections in a manner quite consistent with Taylor’s sixth stanza: God brings trial to bring about sanctification which ends in joy:

It has been abundantly found to be true in fact, by the experience of the Christian church; that Christ commonly gives, by his Spirit, the greatest, and most joyful evidences to his saints, of their sonship, in those effectual exercises of grace, under trials, which have been spoken of; as is manifest in the full assurance, and unspeakable joys of many of the martyrs. Agreeable to that, 1 Pet. 4:14: “If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory, and of God resteth upon you.” And that in Rom. 5:2–3: “We rejoice in hope of the glory of God, and glory in tribulations.” And agreeable to what the apostle Paul often declares of what he experienced in his trials. And when the apostle Peter, in my text, speaks of the “joy unspeakable, and full of glory,” which the Christians to whom he wrote, experienced; he has respect to what they found under persecution, as appears by the context. Christ’s thus manifesting himself, as the friend and Saviour of his saints, cleaving to him under trials, seems to have been represented of old, by his coming and manifesting himself, to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in the furnace

Jonathan Edwards, Religious Affections, ed. John E. Smith and Harry S. Stout, Revised edition., vol. 2, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 454.

Particular clauses:

Oh, that the sweets of all these windings: The sweet end of all the various trials, the “windings” of life.

Spout/Might, I will admit this phrase is obscure. I take it mean something like a waterspout, or a pouring out of something strong and, here, dangerous. But it is not clear to me.

these influences strait and cross

Upon my soul, Strait: narrow, difficult. Cross, painful, contrary.

to make thy shine break out: Here “shine” is a synonym for “glory” or light. Taylor uses the image of light frequently to refer to God.

That Grace might in get and get out my dross!: The prayer here is that the transformative grace of God would enter his soul expel the sinful dross, the impurity in his heart.

My soul up locked then in this clod of dust

Would lock up in’t all heavenly joys most just. 

He here transforms the Platonic/Neo-platonic idea of the body being a bare trap for the soul. The soul is in a clod of dust, for the body will die, and return to dust. But here something happens: into this body is locked-up heavenly joy.  The concept of heavenly joy being locked up also comes from the passage in 1 Peter quoted above: 4 “To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God” The words “reserved” and “kept” are fairly strong terms in the Greek. In particular, the word “kept” has the idea of an actual military guard. These joys are indeed “lock up” safely.

The Image of God as Mirror

12 Saturday Jun 2021

Posted by in Image of God, imago dei

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

As it happened in my reading I came to K. Scott Oliphint in Covenantal Apologetics making a point consistent with the point made by Kuyper and discussed in the previous post 

“This is one reason it might be helpful to remember the analogy of a mirror image. If the image of God is analogous to an image in a mirror, then we realize that the original must be at all times present, in front of the mirror, in order for there to be an image at all. But we also see that the image, as image, while reflecting the original, depends at every second on the presence of the original for its very existence. If the original is no longer present, the image is gone. Image is essentially dependent, for its existence and every one of its characteristics, on the original. The original, however, is in no way dependent on that image in order to be what it is.”