Edward Taylor, The Daintiest Draft.1

19 Saturday Dec 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Edward Taylor, Union With Christ

Tags

2 Corinthians 5, Colossians, Edward Taylor, Literature, poem, Poetry, Union with Christ

Meditation 30, First Series

2 Cor. 5:17

This poem contains an interesting ambiguity in the way in the precise focus of poem is in places difficult to find. The overall thrust of the poem is a prayer that the Lord would repair the ruined palace of the human being. It is a prayer that the Lord would make the poet into something new

Lord, make me thy new creature. (line 45). Which comes from the text for the meditation, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature.” 2 Cor. 5:17.

The “palace” in need of repair is the human being. The ambiguity comes about by the unclear focus as to whether it is the poet or Christ who is immediately in view. To call the poet himself “the stateliest palace angels e’er did view” (3) seems wrong. That would necessarily be Christ, himself.

It would also be appropriate to write that the palace had been spoiled by an enemy. In Isaiah 52:14, the prophet writes that “his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of man.”

In the second stanza, the poet writes

Thou wast more glorious than glory’s wealth. (8)

Again, this would be more appropriately addressed to Christ, than to read this as the poet writing thus of himself fin the second person.

But then in line 26, Taylor writes

My Lord, repair thy palace.

And the remainder of the poem unambiguously reckons the poet to be the palace to be repaired, with the prayer to be made a new creature being the sum of that prayer. The deliberate use of the word “palace” then brings us back to the first stanza and the reference to “the stateliest palace”. It is possible the move referenes to two separate palaces.

But I suspect that Taylor is doing something else. The palace is the image of God which is the purpose and the created nature of each human being (“the image of thyself”). Jesus is the perfect representation of that image; human beings who were created to accurately reflect that image are now spoiled and need to be remade to display that image.

The ambiguity which runs in this poem in his moving between apparent references to Christ and then to the poet can be sorted by using Colossians 3:10 as a key:

And we have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.

In Colossians 1:16 Paul identifies the creator as Christ, “For by him all things were created.” And in verse 15, Paul identified Christ as “the image of the invisible God.”

The ambiguity in the poem as to the reference of the palace being renewed lies in the identification of the Christian with Christ. I think that Taylor is playing off of this identification and purposefully creating an ambiguity of a dual reference. This is inherent in text for the poem. Consider:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.

To be “in Christ” is to be the “new creature”. What appertains to Christ becomes in a manner impressed upon the creature in Christ. This identification of the individual believer with Christ lies at the heart of this poem.

The first stanza sets up the problem:

The daintiest draft thy pencil ever drew

The finest vessel, Lord, thy fingers framed

The stateliest palace angels e’er did view

Under thy hatch betwixt decks here contained

Broke, marred, spoiled, undone, defiled doth lie

In rubbish ruined by thine enemy.

It begins with a series of three parallel descriptions of the object of the poem: “The daintiest draft”, “the finest vessel,” “the stateliest palace.” Dainty no longer carries the same connotation as it did for Taylor, but the meaning is apparent by looking at the parallel construction: This is the finest which could be. To call a human being a “draft” (a drawing) is an interesting play on the concept of “image.”

A vessel and palace likewise make sense as that bears or displays something greater.

As we have previously considered, the reference is ambiguous in that it appears to refer to Christ (who would be the greatest of all examples) and yet the reference in the end will be to Taylor and his prayer to be remade.

The fourth line creates a nearly impossible combination of metaphors: this draft, vessel, palace, is now stowed between the decks of a ship. A draft could easily fit below deck, but to put a ship or even more strangely a palace below deck is impossible. Perhaps the use of the word “vessel” in line 2 suggested a return to a ship in line 4.

This for Taylor must have been a vivid image, when we realize that he had taken a ship from England to New England in the 17^th century, which would have been a couple of months in a cramped tiny ship in the middle of the Atlantic. That many things must be been spoiled below decks on these trips in the salt water and bilge I take for granted.

And it is there in the depths of the vessel, churning on the sea, something of surpassing value. An enemy has thrown it into the bilge where is now ruined and sloshing in the half light.

This is an apt image for the fallen human race; and for the head of the redeemed race, the Second Adam Christ as he was struck down at the cross.

And before leaving this stanza we should know the alliteration:

The daintiest draft thy pencil ever drew

The finest vessel, Lord, thy fingers framed

The stateliest palace angels e’er did view

Under thy hatch betwixt decks here contained

Broke, marred, spoiled, undone, defiled doth lie

In rubbish ruined by thine enemy.

Kuyper, Common Grace.19 (Original Righteousness Continued)

01 Tuesday Dec 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Abraham Kuyper, Anthropology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Abraham Kuyper, Anthropology, Common Grace, Kuyper, Original Righteousness

The previous post in this series may be found here.

Kuyper continues on with the issue of original righteousness in Adam: Was righteousness a supernatural addition to human nature? In this chapter Kuyper examines the issue from a different direction: Whence disordered or rebellious desire in human beings?

He presents the contrast between the Roman Catholic and the Reformed understanding of the question.

The Roman Catholic view (he cites to Bellarmine) explains it thus: The mater which makes up human nature is inherently subject to this defect. To create a human being is to create a being capable of defecting and such defection is an unavoidable consequence of making human beings from matter:

Bellarmine, the skillful Roman Catholic polemicist, who has argued the case for the Roman Catholic side of this doctrine most thoroughly, returns time and again to the point that the temptation to sin lies in the makeup of our nature. Thus he says among other things, “The desire of the flesh is at present a punishment for sin, but for man in his natural state this condition would undoubtedly have been natural, not as a given positive aspect of his nature, but as a deficiency, yes, even as a certain sickness of his nature, that flowed from the constitution of matter.”

If this is so, then there is something matter which is inherently contrary to God. If God could have created a human without this defect inherent in matter, then God could have/should have done so. That God did not create such a human being argues that God could not make such a being and still use matter. There thus must be something ultimately incorrigible in matter.

So, the “fountain of sin” lies in the very fact that we are human beings: which is a deduction Kuyper makes from Bellarmine’s understanding of human nature. Since this “fountain” bubbles up as its own accord, a sinful desire is not sinful. It only become sinful when the will consents to the desire. There must be a second move to turn a desire for sin into a sinful desire.

He makes the observation that the Reformed and Roman Catholic positions differ not on the doctrine of the Trinity but on the doctrine of humanity. Our anthropologies differ: this is the place where the two diverge. Sin does not have its origin in something inherent in the physical body and the soul, but rather has its source in the spiritual (not the physical). Satan a pure spirt without body introduced humanity to sin.

Human beings were created with original righteousness, not as a supernatural addition but as something inherent in humanity – but that this original righteousness exists in our dependence – not independence from God.

Kuyper then draws out an implication from this fact of dependence: Human beings were not created with humanity as the end, the purpose of humanity. Human beings were created for God and God’s purposes. Human beings were specifically created to glorify God; God creates us for His glory.

There is another corollary which Kuyper draws: If human beings have some purpose other than God’s glory, if there is some purpose, some end which we should/may achieve other than God’s glory, then God becomes an instrument to help us achieve that end. God becomes a tool in our effort to achieve our glory.

God created Adam in such a way, with excellency and glory, because such an Adam was needful for God’s aim. God did not need Adam, but it did please God to create Adam and to work through Adam and to so sustain Adam by grace.

Kuyper, Common Grace 1.18 (The Nature of Original Righteousness)

22 Thursday Oct 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Abraham Kuyper, Creation, Original Sin

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Abraham Kuyper, Original Righteousness, Original Sin, Revoice, Roman Catholicism

In the 18^th chapter, Kuyper analyzes the nature of Adam’s original righteousness. He first considers the Roman Catholic position: In Adam’s pre-Fall state, he consisted of body and spirit, horse and rider. The body, the horse, was possessed by original nature of concupiscence: desire was in man by God’s creation:

This tendency, called concupiscence, was not itself sin, but could easily become the occasion and fuel for sin. (But cf. Rom. 7:8; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:5, Auth. Ver.). Man, then, as he was originally constituted, was by nature without positive holiness, but also without sin, though burdened with a tendency which might easily result in sin.

L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 209. Thus, to keep man in order God gave the spirit as a rider for the horse. But since this would easily let men fail, God also bestowed a supernatural grace upon man of righteousness. As Charles Hodge explains:

According to their theory, God created man soul and body. These two constituents of his nature are naturally in conflict. To preserve the harmony between them, and the due subjection of the flesh to the spirit, God gave man the supernatural gift of original righteousness. It was this gift that man lost by his fall; so that since the apostasy he is in the state in which Adam was before he was invested with this supernatural endowment.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 103. Thus, freedom of choice remained in humanity after the Fall:

But the capacity to choose by one’s free will nevertheless continued in the sinful part of the human spirit, and today free will remains the starting point of moving toward spiritual perfection, if not in the Pelagian sense then at least in the manner of the semi-Pelagians.

Thus, the conflict within the human being is a conflict between desire and reason; and it was by the addition of a supernatural grace that Adam was in a state of original righteousness.

The Reformed view differs at this point. Original righteousness was part of the original nature of humanity; it was not added by supernatural power. The fall of the Fall was not the loss of supernatural grace but rather corruption. He cites to Lord’s Day question 7 of the Heidelberg Catechism, “hence our nature is become so corrupt.”

Kuyper insists that it was not the loss of essence but the corruption of nature, the two terms being distinguished:

Essence and nature, so they maintained, must be distinguished. The essence is the abiding, while nature is the changeable, such that sin did change the functioning of the nature of man, but the essence of man has remained what it was, and will remain so, even if it descends forever into the place of damnation. In Satan as well, the essence of the angel remains unchangeably the same; only his nature has, with regard to its function, changed completely into its opposite. The same is equally true of mankind.

As he works through the warrants for these positions, Kuyper first notes that the Roman view implies that man was defective in that he needed an additional to be holy. The second argument is that man in and of himself was defective in this respect then some of a different kind must be added to keep him in line; as if an angel were given to protect him.

There is an interesting implication of this distinction: is a desire toward something in and of itself. In Roman Catholicism a desire without acquiescence of the will is not sinful – because the capacity for such desire is inherent in the human being. As the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

From the explanation given, it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature. Nor have the inordinate desires (actual concupiscence) or the proneness to them (habitual concupiscence) the nature of sin; for sin, being the free and deliberate transgression of the law of God, can be only in the rational will; though it be true that they are temptations to sin, becoming the stronger and the more frequent the oftener they have been indulged.

Bavinck explains the development of this position in Scholatisticism:

Scholasticism, furthermore, began gradually to distinguish between primo-primi, secundo-primi, and plane deliberati desires, that is, those thoughts and desires that arise in us spontaneously before any consent of the will and are not at all sinful; those against which the will has offered resistance but by which it has been overpowered and which are venial sins; and those to which the will has consciously and fully consented and which are mortal sins. Added to this was the fact that the conception of original sin was becoming ever weaker and original sin itself viewed as wholly eradicated by baptism. What remained, concupiscence, was itself not sinful but only a “possible incentive to sin.” Rome, accordingly, decreed that the guilt and pollution of original sin was totally removed by baptism, that though concupiscence remained, it does not injure those who do not consent to it and can only be called sin “because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.”

Herman Bavinck, John Bolt, and John Vriend, Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 142–143. But in Reformed doctrine, the desire itself is sinful; such sinful desires are culpable before God:

The idea that original righteousness was supernaturally added to man’s natural constitution, and that its loss did not detract from human nature, is an un-Scriptural idea, as was pointed out in our discussion of the image of God in man. According to the Bible concupiscence is sin, real sin, and the root of many sinful actions.

L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 236. This had an interesting playout in the Reformed world with the Revoice Conference. You can read about it here.

Edward Taylor, 28th Meditation.3

08 Thursday Oct 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Edward Taylor, Grace, Martin Luther, Puritan

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

28th Meditation, Edward Taylor, Grace, John 1, Literature, poem, Poetry

Thou, thou my Lord, art full, top full of Grace,

The golden sea of grace whose springs thence come

And precious drills, boiling in every place.

Untap they cask and let my cup catch some

Although it is in an earthen vessel’s case

Let it no empty vessel be of grace.

This stanza begins with two stressed syllables separated by a pause: THOU — THOU my LORD…. The emphasis thus falls most heavily upon the addressee. This functions almost as a new invocation: he has asked to fill him, and here he repeats and makes even more emphatic the call for grace.

In the second half of the line, Taylor does something similar where he repeats “full” with an emphasis falling on the second full (which is not merely full, but is “top full”).

Although it is a “fault” with the line, it ends with an emphasized “grace”. The fault is that Taylor has put 6 stresses in a 5 stress line. Yet even though it is a technical fault, it helps underscore the desire of the poet. I truly need this.

The second line smooths out with a fine alliteration of “g” from the end of the first line: grace … golden … grace.

The springs are rising up from the depth of the sea: the sea is so completely filled with grace, and grace wells-up continually so that the surface is “boiling” with rising streams of grace. And so matches the nature of the gospel of our grace: Our need is continual, but the grace of God in Jesus Christ is greater, inexhaustible. No matter the depth of our need, it cannot begin to exhaust the supply.

A hymn has it

Grace, grace, God’s grace

Grace that is greater than all our sin.

The theology which underlies Taylor’s prayer in this poem: his own inability and need vs. Christ’s inexhaustive grace owes much to Luther’s statement in the Heidelberg Disputations no 18, “It is certain that one must utterly despair of oneself in order to be made fit to receive the grace of Christ.” Whether Taylor ever read the disputations, I do not know. But the theology set forth there was much developed by Lutheran and Reformed theologians and showed up theology which Taylor would have known.

He then uses the image of a cask filled with wine: He asks that the cask be tapped and that the grace flow into the empty, earthen vessel, until it is full:

Untap they cask and let my cup catch some

Although it is in an earthen vessel’s case

Let it no empty vessel be of grace.

Thomas Shepherd, Is Your Obedience “Evangelical” or “Legal”

03 Saturday Oct 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Grace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Evangelical Obedience, Grace, legalism, Parable of the Ten Virgins, Thomas Shepherd

In The Parable of the Ten Virgin, Thomas Shepherd asks the question of how to discern whether we are “married to the law instead of to Christ.” The understanding of this question gets to the matter of what the Puritans called “evangelical obedience.” This concept seems paradoxical: if we are saved by grace, and if we are not under the law but under grace (Rom. 6:14), then why would one such as Shepherd write, “When I speak of being married to the law instead of Christ, I do not hereby exempt yourselves from obedient to the law after you are in Christ?” (36)

He starts with the question of how do we respond when we are tempted and fall into sin. First, assume you have been troubled by sin, “what hath cheered thee?” How do you find relief for a subjective sense for the damage of sin. (36-37)

Let us say you think to yourself, “”I have forsaken them, and cast out Jonah, and there has been a calm.” If so, you are reliant upon the law for your peace of mind.

Or if you fall into sin again, how do you calm your conscience? “I have repented and been sorry for them and purposed to do no more.” But that still is not reliance upon Christ, “This is the life of the law still.”

What if the sin has been unshakeable, habitual, “you find sins prevailing againt you, and you cannot part with them”? Well, my “desire is good” and my heart has been resolved against them. “This desire is but a work of the law.”

What if you say, “I have trusted Christ.” The answer, “You have done it.”

The proposition, “As obedience to the law done by the power of Christ an evangelical work, so to perform any evangelical work from a man’s self is a legal work.” (37)

This obviously is not a comprehensive answer, but it does put us in the right direction.

Edward Taylor, Oh Wealthy Theme.4

01 Saturday Aug 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Christology, Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

christology, Edward Taylor, Justice, mercy, poem, Poetry

All office fulness with all office gifts

Embossed are in thee, whereby thy grace

Doth treat both God and man, brings up by hifts

Black sinner and white justice to embrace:

Making the glory of God’s justice shine

And making sinners to God’s glory climb.

Office: At this point, Taylor is using the standard theological language of “office” to describe the work of Jesus Christ. It is a reference to particular aspects of Christ’s work as prophet, priest and king. The Westminster Shorter Catechism, questions 23-27 read as follows:

Q. 23. What offices doth Christ execute as our Redeemer?

A. Christ, as our Redeemer, executeth the offices of a prophet [a], of a priest [b], and of a king [c], both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation.

[a]. Deut. 18:18; Acts 2:33; 3:22-23; Heb. 1:1-2

[b]. Heb. 4:14-15; 5:5-6

[c]. Isa. 9:6-7; Luke 1:32-33; John 18:37; 1 Cor. 15:25

Q. 24. How doth Christ execute the office of a prophet?

A. Christ executeth the office of a prophet, in revealing to us, by his Word [a] and Spirit [b,] the will of God for our salvation [c].

[a]. Luke 4:18-19, 21; Acts 1:1-2; Heb. 2:3

[b]. John 15:26-27; Acts 1:8; 1 Pet. 1:11

[c]. John 4:41-42; 20:30-31

Q. 25. How doth Christ execute the office of a priest?

A. Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice [a], and reconcile us to God [b]; and in making continual intercession for us [c].

[a]. Isa. 53; Acts 8:32-35; Heb. 9:26-28; 10:12

[b]. Rom. 5:10-11; 2 Cor. 5:18; Col. 1:21-22

[c]. Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; 9:24

Q. 26. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?

A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us [a], and in restraining and conquering all his

and our enemies [b].

[a]. Ps. 110:3; Matt. 28:18-20; John 17:2; Col. 1:13

[b]. Ps. 2:6-9; 110:1-2; Matt. 12:28; 1 Cor. 15:24-26; Col. 2:15

What Taylor means is that Christ fulfills the work of prophet, priest and king in the Incarnation, and that also Christ has the “gifts,” the abilities to fulfill such work.

Treat God and man: Christ, in his unique position as God Incarnate can deal equally with God and with Human Beings. He can communicate between the two as a bridge before the finite and infinite, the creator and creature.

Justice and mercy: The concept which causes Taylor to so praise, is that Christ, by means of his unique position being God and Man, can reconcile two completely opposite demands.

Justice by its nature requires satisfaction of the guilty party. If one is guilty, it is unjust for the law to ignore the demand. To understand this point, perhaps you need to feel it.

Imagine that someone you dearly loved was victimized by a brutal criminal. This criminal was then brought before a judge, where the fact of the crime was unquestionably established. However, the judge simply determined to let the criminal free without any penalty. You would rightly be angry: the law was unjust in permitting the guilty to go free.

Thus, God – to be God – must be perfectly just and cannot ignore crime.

However, this presents an unsolvable problem for humanity. The wrong done to an infinitely perfect being does not permit an easy resolution. What could we possibly do to satisfy the justice of God?

The prophet Micah put it this way:

Micah 6:6–7 (ESV)

⁶ “With what shall I come before the Lord,

and bow myself before God on high?

Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,

with calves a year old?

⁷ Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,

with ten thousands of rivers of oil?

Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,

the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”

What we need is mercy from God.

How then can God be perfectly just (fully punishing crime) and merciful (passing over crime)?

Jesus as God and Man stands in for humanity. God’s justice is brought upon Jesus who suffers as a substitute and thus obtains mercy for human beings. In the act of faith and repentance, God transfers our guilt to Christ and Christ’s righteousness to us and so the sinner and justice “embrace.”

Edward Taylor Oh Wealthy Theme.3

24 Friday Jul 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Christology, Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christ, Edward Taylor, poem, Poetry, Puritan Poetry

Oh! Wealthy box: more golden far than gold

A case more worth than wealth: a richer delph

Than rubies; cabinet than pearls here told

A purse more glittering than glory ‘tiself

A golden storehouse of all fullness: shelf

Of heavenly plate. All fullness in thyself.

The box which holds the fullness of Christ, then must be Christ himself. He compares Christ to a box, a case, a cabinet, a purse, a storehouse, a shelf. For each compared container, Christ is worth more than any earthy good which could be placed into the container; of more worth than gold, rubes, pearls, silver.

Delph would be variant of a delft, a decorative box.

Oh! Godhead fullness! There doth in thee flow

All wisdom’s fulness, fulness of all strength:

Of justice, truth, love, holiness also

And grace’s fulness to its upmost length

Do dwell in thee. Yea and thy Father’s pleasure

Thou art their cabinet and they thy treasure.

This stanza makes two points. First, it details the elements of the fullness, which is a summary of biblical statements about Christ. Second, there is a statement of the Father’s pleasure in the Son.

This stanza is then linked up to the preceding argument by use of the word “cabinet”. Christ is the “cabinet” in which these virtues reside. And the Father then takes pleasure in the cabinet filled with treasure, which is the Son incarnate.

Wisdom:

Colossians 2:1–3 (ESV)

For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, ²that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, ³in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Strength:

1 Timothy 1:12 (ESV)

¹²I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service,

Justice:

Matthew 12:18–21 (ESV)

¹⁸ “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen,

my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased.

I will put my Spirit upon him,

and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.

¹⁹ He will not quarrel or cry aloud,

nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets;

²⁰ a bruised reed he will not break,

and a smoldering wick he will not quench,

until he brings justice to victory;

²¹ and in his name the Gentiles will hope.”

Truth:

John 1:17 (ESV)

¹⁷For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Holiness:

Romans 1:4 (ESV)

⁴and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Grace

2 Corinthians 8:9 (ESV)

⁹For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.

Pleasure:

Mark 1:9–11 (ESV)

⁹In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. ¹⁰And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. ¹¹And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

The pattern of biblical judgment

05 Friday Jun 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Idolatry

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Egypt, Exodus, idolatry, judgment, Plagues

Biblical judgment follows a consistent pattern: we judged on the basis of our idol

Consider the plagues of Egypt. The Pharaoh orders the death of infant boys; one by one they are cast into the river, the Nile, that great god of Egypt. The Nile brings life in the desert: their water, their food, their safety are all bound up in that great god.

But when God sets his eyes upon Egypt, it is the Nile that fails. The blood of the boys wells and the river is blood. The life of Egypt has become a gushing artery of death. The Nile has been killed and kills in turn.

The sun was a great god, the source of life. And so, God in his turns, kills the sun. The sky grows dark at day.

The Pharaoh himself is the issue of the sun. The Pharaoh’s firstborn boy is likewise a god and the son of a god. Rather than turn their worship to the true Creator, the Egyptians gave their praise to the boy in his turn.

And so the Pharaoh who brought death to the son of his slaves finds death in his own home.

There is a pattern here, the idol matches the judgment. One the type, the other the antitype.

Our idols fail precisely in their promise. They promise life, but deliver death.

The judgment need not be the end. When God first struck the Nile, the plea was for Egypt to turn. When God brought night and day, the proof was the Sun was no god. But persistence in rebellion is its own curse. And finally, the child of a lie, the promise which could not deliver, the god who is no God will fail.

Chained to an idol

30 Thursday Apr 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Ante-Nicene, Idolatry, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Addiction, Chained to a body, Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, idolatry, idols, Romans 7:24

14747415206_3fb6503527_o

For that wicked reptile monster, by his enchantments, enslaves and plagues men even till now; inflicting, as seems to me, such barbarous vengeance on them as those who are said to bind the captives to corpses till they rot together. This wicked tyrant and serpent, accordingly, binding fast with the miserable chain of superstition whomsoever he can draw to his side from their birth, to stones, and stocks, and images, and such like idols, may with truth be said to have taken and buried living men with those dead idols, till both suffer corruption together.

Therefore (for the seducer is one and the same) he that at the beginning brought Eve down to death, now brings thither the rest of mankind.

Clement of Alexandria, “Exhortation to the Heathen,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 173.

This quotation is interesting on a few grounds. First, it contains a source for the not-uncommon image used in sermons particular on Romans 7:24 (who will deliver me from this body of death). But I note that even Clement didn’t have a definite source of the story beyond the indefinite “they say” (legousin, in the original).

Second, it is a striking description of the danger and evil of idolatry: “to have taken and buried living men with those dead idols, till both suffer corruption together.” To have an idol is to be shackled to an idol.

A similar image is used of addictions in our day, which is appropriate seeing addiction is another way to understand magic and idolatry. It is to be chained to, buried with.

Framing the Issue of the Spirit’s Indwelling and the Old Testament

23 Thursday Apr 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Pneumatology, Theology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Pneumatology

Often we misunderstand a topic because we consider the issue in fundamentally the wrong way. Having taken up the question at the wrong end, the actual solution becomes invisible.

One such issue is the matter of the indwelling of the Spirit how that relates to OT believers. I Dr. Abner Chou’s paper at the November 2018 meeting of the ETS entitled, “Revisiting the Spirit’s Indwelling of OT Saints: Ezekiel’s Contribution to the Issue” provides a good example of how recasting the issue can provide a “way forward” to resolve a long-standing quandary.

The essay begins with a survey of the various potential ways to address the issue, ranging from total continuity, through varying degrees of discontinuity. But in this discussion, the underlying issue for the commentators seems to concern the question of regeneration: “At least in recent history, people cannot speak of the indwelling without speaking of regeneration.”

The issue has been how do we talk about the salvation or sanctification of OT saints if they were not indwelt by the Spirit? And I must admit as thought of the topic, without any particular study of the issue, I began the with the question of how salvation or sanctification took place without indwelling of the Spirit.

This leads to a primary element in Chou’s argument, “such a presupposed link is not necessarily required.”

As he rehearses the various positions, it becomes clear that the primary issue among those who have been discussing the issue is how salvation and sanctification took place before the coming of the Spirit promised in John 14: Perhaps the OT saints were indwelt, but were merely not indwelt to the same extent as NT saints. Or the Spirits work was done by the Spirit presence’s in the Temple.

The discussion thus leads to an impass. The Scripture supports non-indwelling, but theology requires indwelling (or no one was saved before Christ).

Chou puts the problem at the level of definition: The discussion of indwelling has presumed that indwelling is necessary for salvation, therefore, we must nuance the concept of “indwelling”. The emphasis has thus been upon the results of indwelling rather than the nature of indwelling.

In effect, the issue has been grabbed from the wrong end.

Rather than beginning with the presupposition that indwelling effects salvation, Chou begins with what the Scripture says about indwelling. The issue of indwelling, or the Spirit is discussed in the OT but in terms of the Spirit filling the Temple. Thus, to understand the issue, we must the Temple: The Temple is indwelt with the Spirit: For instance, the Temple is “filled” with the glory of God.

The NT believers have taken over as the Temple, and thus believers are filled with the Spirit in the exhibition of the Glory of God.

The article is 29 pages of single space 12-point text, so plainly there is a great more to be found. The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society is available online