Tag Archives: Calvin

Edward Taylor, Meditation 25, “Why Should My Bells”, Stanza 5

15 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Literature, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

Dost thou adorn some thus, and why not me?

I’ll not believe it.  Lord, thou art my chief.

Thou me commandest to believe in thee.

I’ll not affront thee thus with unbelief.

Lord, make my soul obedient:  and when so,

Thou sayst, “Believe,” make it reply, “I do.”

Paraphrase: You adorn — give your righteousness and forgiveness — to some; why would you not give the same to me?

The next phrase “I’ll not believe it” is ambiguous. It could me, I will not believe that you would adorn others and not me. Or, it could mean, I can’t believe that you will so adorn me. Or, I will not believe that you could adorn me.  This paradox gets to the crux of the stanza.

In relationships between persons, believe is the means by which love is given and received. For example, imagine two young people who each secretly love the other. Their love is real, but it is uncommunicated. Now imagine that one says to the other, “I love you.” The beloved must believe the love is real to receive the love. If the beloved thinks this is a joke, a farce, a lie, he can never receive the love. The love is real but uncommunicated. Unless and until the beloved believes the love is real the love cannot be communicated.

The same mechanism lies at the heart of Christianity: the love of God is communicated by the means of belief. This ambiguity of the line plays the need and hesitancy of faith.

The poet then turns to prayer, make me believe in accordance with your command.

Allusions:

There are biblical allusions and an allusion to Augustine’s Confessions.

The command to believe:

Mark 1:14–15 (ESV)

14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Belief and obedience. Some put obedience and belief as opposites. Taylor would not have held to such a position.

First, Taylor would have held a position consistent with Chapter XIV, Saving Faith Westminster Confession:

  1. By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein [John 4:42; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 John 5:10; Acts 24:14]; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands [Rom. 16:26.], trembling at the threatenings [Isa. 66:2.], and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come [Heb. 11:13; 1 Tim. 4:8.]. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, with Translations, vol. 3 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882), 630–631.

There is also a famous parallel in Augustine which sparked the Pelagian controversy:

NOW is all my hope nowhere but in thy very great mercy. Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt [da quod iubes et iube quod vis]. Thou imposest continency upon us; and when I perceived, as one saith, that no man can be continent unless thou give it, this also was a point of wisdom, to know whose gift it was. By continency verily are we bound up and brought into the one,* from which we were scattered abroad into many: for too little doth he love thee, who loves anything together with thee, which he loves not for thee. O thou Love which art ever burning, and never quenched! O Charity, my God! kindle me I beseech thee. Thou commandest me continency: give me what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt.

Augustine of Hippo, St. Augustine’s Confessions, Vol. 2, ed. T. E. Page and W. H. D. Rouse, trans. William Watts, The Loeb Classical Library (New York; London: The Macmillan Co.; William Heinemann, 1912), 149–151.

To further understand Taylor’s thinking, a passage from John Calvin’s commentary on John 6:44 might help:

Unless the Father draw him. To come to Christ being here used metaphorically for believing, the Evangelist, in order to carry out the metaphor in the apposite clause, says that those persons are drawn whose understandings God enlightens, and whose hearts he bends and forms to the obedience of Christ. The statement amounts to this, that we ought not to wonder if many refuse to embrace the Gospel; because no man will ever of himself be able to come to Christ, but God must first approach him by his Spirit; and hence it follows that all are not drawn, but that God bestows this grace on those whom he has elected. True, indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant. It is a false and profane assertion, therefore, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has formed their hearts to obey him.

John Calvin, John, electronic ed., Calvin’s Commentaries (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998), Jn 6:44.

Scansion:  The interesting usage in this stanza is the repetition of an accent on the first syllable:

 Dost thou adorn some thus, and why not me?

 I’LL not believe it.  Lord, thou art my chief.

THOU me commandest to believe in thee.

 I’LL not affront thee thus with unbelief.

 LORD, make my soul obedient:  and when so,

 THOU sayst, “Believe,” make it reply, “I do.”

Why Common Grace is Not Enough (or even Necessary) for Counseling

20 Wednesday Dec 2017

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

I am working on an essay for the Journal of Biblical Soul Care on the matter of common grace. If anyone has a comment, I would appreciate it. [Sorry for the formatting oddities]

Schematic representation of (1) why Biblical Counseling holds that the Scripture and the Spirit are sufficient for counseling; and (2) Biblical Counseling holds that common grace is not sufficient, nor even necessary for counseling. (This is not to say that common grace observations are not useful, nor that such observations are untrue.  Yet if the Scripture is sufficient for counseling, then counseling can be conducted without reference to a common grace observation.)

 

God

Loss of the created relationship: sin

Man

Gen. 3

This loss flows downward into two separate, but related streams of injury.

 

Sin causes:

 

Subjective/Internal Injury

loss of the image in some respect. (The precise nature of the loss of image due to sin is debated. But at the very least this loss is what is renewed: Col. 3:10.) There is sin, shame and unrepentance.

 

 

The injury

1) makes the man incapable of responding to the objective injuries with joy and contentment;

2) contributes to and creates more objective/external injuries:

a) our personal sin

b) our sin against others

c) our foolishness and sin which cause human and natural injuries (such as a poorly built house which collapses).

 

 

 

 Objective/External Injury

Physical Death

Pain of work

Hostile Environment

Human relationship difficulties

Hostility of spiritual beings

Eternal punishment

 

These things cause additional damage as human beings suffer from the effects of sin and decay (both personal and “natural”).

 

 

 

 

Psychological and emotional injuries fit into both categories: We begin with a damaged human being: both in mind and body. That human being suffers at the hands of others, himself and the sin of others. These injuries show up in the body and mind.

 

Grace

 

Special Grace is given for the restoration of the subjective injury: this is referred to as salvation: justification & sanctification. The renewal of the mind.

 

  

Common grace is given to ameliorate full effects of the objective injury of sin. These injuries cannot be remedied in this age, because sin necessitates death (and all the lesser included injuries).

 

Common grace gives men an understanding of some of the objective, physical effects of sin.

 

 

A note on what can be seen: When we consider the suffering which human beings experience, all human beings (by common grace) can those things which occur in the material universe; however, spiritual elements (the relationship between God and man) cannot be rightly seen or understood without God’s revelation. Human beings do intuit that such a level of explanation exists, and those the various religious and metaphysical explanations of humanity. (See, Daniel Strange, There Rock is not Our Rock).

“To my knowledge, Scripture never uses hen or charis to refer to his blessings on creation generally or on nonelect humanity. So it would perhaps be better to speak of God’s common goodness, or common love, rather than his common grace. The word grace in Scripture tends to be more narrowly focused on redemption than goodness and love, though the latter terms also have rich redemptive associations.”

Frame, John M.. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (p. 246). P&R Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Restoration

 

The mind begins renewal in this age

 

 

 

 The objective injuries will not be renewed until the age to come. Common grace is given so that men will not immediately be annihilated nor destroy one-another.

 

Special grace, as granted by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, is sufficient to remedy the injury to the mind, to the soul.  Special grace informs us of the true basis for the injury and so transforms the mind/heart of man that the man may be able to bear with contentment the injuries and losses which beset us in this age. As the mind is renewed, the man becomes capable of having the fruit of the Spirit and contentment irrespective of the state of one’s personal history, current condition, or physical limitations.

Any examination of the human condition aside from common grace tells us only of the objective, external injuries of sin. Common grace tells us that a man has a disease; or that a man has mistreated by another; or that a man engages in bad acts and espouses a bad motive. Common grace does not tell us why men die (beyond that told us in general revelation). Moreover, common grace cannot remedy the injury caused by sin. For example, medicine may lessen some physical ailment and even postpone death: medicine cannot overcome death absolutely. Common grace may impose limitations on the ability of men to sin against one-another it cannot remedy sin.

In short, common grace seeks to temporarily change the environment; special grace seeks to change the heart.

When this comes to psychology: common grace, at best, can inform some ways to maneuver the objective troubles; but common grace cannot teach us to be content, joyful and loving despite our objective troubles. Common grace observations (if you will) may tell us that children who grow up in abusive circumstances will exhibit more unhappiness on average than those who do not. This is true because sin injures us inside and out, and sin teaches us to sin. Common grace may even notice that sinful patterns have distinct and repetitive patterns. But common grace was never meant to renew the mind and conform us to the image of Christ.

 

Unless and until the relationship with God is restored and the inner man renew

 

No matter how good the common grace observation or strategy; common grace cannot transform the relationship between God and man, and thus cannot transform the man.

 

Addendum:

This is from an email exchange with an OT PhD:

For purposes of this paper, I need only take the existing view(s). Kuyper’s position is important because many of the integrationists quote Kuyper out of context. Kuyper made some sweeping comments about “all the creation” here and there. Since his work on Common Grace (which is massive. Only vol. 1 has been translated into English, there are three volumes; Lexham is publisher), these comments have been used to support a sweeping vision of “common” or even “creation” grace. Kuyper has a narrower definition of common grace than Calvin.

The phrase “common grace” is also problematic because the Bible never calls this “grace”. It is better to call it God’s goodness. I think Kuyper is right that God extended additional goodness in the covenant of Noah — Kuyper’s understanding makes sense of the “as in the days of Noah” language. He says that when the Son of Perdition appears God will withdraw the goodness offered at the time of Noah.

There are two basic elements which are attributed: human achievement and the restraint of sin (human achievement is present in Genesis 4; there is also some mercy shown to Cain: but Cain seems to be limited to Cain). These are emphasized by Calvin and Kuyper respectively. I have not found any analysis of the comparison and contrast between the views: which is interesting. Perhaps there is something in Dutch or German. There is a third element which is the perpetuation of the material world in a regular manner (albeit deteriorating; Rom. 8).

I think there is some work that should be done on this point. Most recent statements in systematics merely quote John Murray’s essay.

All I need to (and can) in this paper is demonstrate that under any of the existing theories of common grace/goodness do not support (1) a proper understanding of Man’s psychological injury; and (2) cannot provide a proper remedy for Man’s psychological injury. Common grace is meant only to ameliorate temporal injury to permit the continued existence of mankind for the purposes of God in creation (primarily, thought not exclusively for the preservation of mankind until the in-time salvation of the elect).

If we were at peace, we would be asleep

16 Wednesday Aug 2017

Posted by in John Calvin

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Now, it is much better for things to be in a state of confusion so we will wake up, for if we were at peace, we would be asleep, we would no longer be aware of anything, anything at all. But if things go badly, we are forced to think about God and put our senses on alert and think about a judgment that is prepared, which is not yet apparent, and that is how our Lord leads us to hunger for the last day and the resurrection which has been promised. But the fact remains that men continue to surround themselves with false and wicked fantasies. For, as I have already said, inasmuch as events do not happen as we would like, we are tempted to suppose that God does not think of us or watch over us any longer, that serving him is a wasted effort and that there is no difference whether we live an upright life or not and that the good gain nothing by walking in fear under him.
John Calvin, Sermon on Job 24:1-9

Doddridge on being a minister

19 Wednesday Apr 2017

Posted by in Elders, Ministry, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Philip Doddridge, D.D., in Lectures on Preaching and the Several Branches of the Ministerial Office, 1808, Boston. The lectures were not published until after Doddridge had died. A short biography may be found here. Dr. Doddridge begins his lectures with 13 general comments about how one can make himself ready for the work of a minister:

See to it that there be a foundation of sincere piety in yourselves, or else there is but little prospect of your being useful or acceptable to others. — Be therefore firmly resolved to devote yourselves to God, and do so solemnly.

Examination:

Piety is an old-fashioned concept, but it lies at the heart of being a Christian. A pastor is one who undertakes to care for the souls of others, to lead them to Christ and to help shelter them from spiritual harm. To understand the word “piety” here and its importance, it would be useful to see it in the context of Calvin’s use in the Institutes, for instance:

Now, the knowledge of God, as I understand it, is that by which we not only conceive that there is a God but also grasp what befits us and is proper to his glory, in fine, what is to our advantage to know of him. Indeed, we shall not say that, properly speaking, God is known where there is no religion or piety

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1 & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 39. In a footnote to this section, Battles writes,

It is a favorite emphasis in Calvin that pietas, piety, in which reverence and love of God are joined, is prerequisite to any true knowledge of God. Cf. I. iv. 4. The brief characterization of pietas that follows here may be compared with his words written in 1537: “The gist of true piety does not consist in a fear which would gladly flee the judgment of God, but … rather in a pure and true zeal which loves God altogether as Father, and reveres him truly as Lord, embraces his justice and dreads to offend him more than to die”; Instruction in Faith (1537), tr. P. T. Fuhrmann, pp. 18 f. (original in OS I. 379). For an examination of “pietas literata” with reference to Erasmus, John Sturm, Melanchthon, and Cordier, see P. R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage and Its Beneficiaries, pp. 329–356. (In many contexts pietas is translated “godliness” in the present work.)

We would not hire a plumber or doctor, lawyer or gardener who did not exhibit skill and interest in that particular subject. Yet many pastors seem more fit for entertainer than a fit guide in godliness. In any event, Doddridge is right. Here are a couple of questions for self-examination on the question of piety.

Meditation: What do I read? Is my reading affective — does what I read (if it is profitable) something which stirs my heart or changes my conduct? Do I ponder and consider what I read? How is my reading of Scripture? Is it perfunctory or diligent and delightful? Do I read, meditate, change?

Prayer: Do I pray — and not just as a matter of course before meals? Do I pray for holiness? Do I pray for others. (Here is a place to start: http://www.icommittopray.com).

Time: How do I spend my time? Take one week, and track your time in 15 minute intervals? What does it show?

Service: Does you life of faith flow out as love to your neighbor?

Holiness: Would someone who spent much time with you think that this characterizes your life? Is there a growth in holiness?

Resolution: Have you — and if not do so — resolve to God that your will demonstrate this piety.

Pilgrim’s Progress Study Guide Six (The Valley of the Shadow of Death)

16 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by in affliction, Andrew Bonar, John Bunyan, John Calvin

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The prior post in this series may be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/pilgrims-progress-study-guide-5/

Christian in the Valley of the Shadow of Death:

  1. Why does Christian go through the Valley of the Shadow of Death?
  2. This letter from Samuel Rutherford helps us understand this passage:

WELL-BELOVED AND DEAR SISTER IN CHRIST,—I could not get an answer written to your letter till now, in respect of my wife’s disease; and she is yet mightily pained.[1] I hope that all shall end in God’s mercy. I know that an afflicted life looks very like the way that leads to the kingdom; for the Apostle hath drawn the line and the King’s market-way, “through much tribulation, to the kingdom” (Acts 14:22; 1 Thess. 3:4). The Lord grant us the whole armour of God.

….all God’s plants, set by His own hand, thrive well; and if the work be of God, He can make a stepping-stone of the devil himself for setting forward the work.

For yourself, I would advise you to ask of God a submissive heart. Your reward shall be with the Lord, although the people be not gathered (as the prophet speaks); and suppose the word do not prosper, God shall account you “a repairer of the breaches.”

And take Christ caution, ye shall not lose your reward. Hold your grip fast. If ye knew the mind of the glorified in heaven, they think heaven come to their hand at an easy market, when they have got it for threescore or fourscore years wrestling with God. When ye are come thither, ye shall think, “All I did, in respect of my rich reward, now enjoyed of free grace, was too little.” Now then, for the love of the Prince of your salvation, who is standing at the end of your way, holding up in His hand the prize and the garland to the race-runners, Forward, forward; faint not.

Take as many to heaven with you as ye are able to draw. The more ye draw with you, ye shall be the welcomer yourself. Be no niggard or sparing churl of the grace of God; and employ all your endeavours for establishing an honest ministry in your town, now when ye have so few to speak a good word for you. I have many a grieved heart daily in my calling. I would be undone, if I had not access to the King’s chamber of presence, to show Him all the business.

The devil rages, and is mad to see the water drawn from his own mill; but would to God we could be the Lord’s instruments to build the Son of God’s house….

Samuel Rutherford and Andrew A. Bonar, Letters of Samuel Rutherford: With a Sketch of His Life and Biographical Notices of His Correspondents (Edinburgh; London: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1891), 50–51.

Continue reading →

Knowledge of Self Requires Knowledge of God

12 Thursday Feb 2015

Posted by in John Calvin

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

1. Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God
b(a)Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.3 eBut, while joined by many bonds, bwhich one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern. eIn the first place, no one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God, in whom he “lives and moves” [Acts 17:28]. For, quite clearly, the mighty gifts with which we are endowed are hardly from ourselves; indeed, our very being is nothing but subsistence in the one God. Then, by these benefits shed like dew from heaven upon us, we are led as by rivulets to the spring itself. Indeed, our very poverty better discloses the infinitude of benefits reposing in God. The miserable ruin, into which the rebellion of the first man cast us, especially compels us to look upward. Thus, not only will we, in fasting and hungering, seek thence what we lack; but, in being aroused by fear, we shall learn humility.4 bFor, as a veritable world of miseries is to be found in mankind, e(b)and we are thereby despoiled of divine raiment, our shameful nakedness exposes a teeming horde of infamies. Each of us must, then, be so stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness as to attain at least some knowledge of God. bThus, from the feeling of our own ignorance, vanity, poverty, infirmity, and—what is more—depravity and corruption, we recognize that the true light of wisdom, sound virtue, full abundance of every good, and purity of righteousness rest in the Lord alone. To this extent we are prompted by our own ills to contemplate the good things of God; and we cannot seriously aspire to him before we begin to become displeased with ourselves. For what man in all the world would not gladly remain as he is—what man does not remain as he is—so long as he does not know himself, that is, while content with his own gifts, and either ignorant or unmindful of his own misery? Accordingly, the knowledge of ourselves not only arouses us to seek God, but also, as it were, leads us by the hand to find him.

2. Without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self
bAgain, it is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself5 unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself.6 For we always seem to ourselves righteous and upright and wise and holy—this pride is innate in all of us—unless by clear proofs we stand convinced of our own unrighteousness, foulness, folly, and impurity. Moreover, we are not thus convinced if we look merely to ourselves and not also to the Lord, who is the sole standard by which this judgment must be measured. For, because all of us are inclined by nature to hypocrisy,7 a kind of empty image of righteousness in place of righteousness itself abundantly satisfies us. And because nothing appears within or around us that has not been contaminated by great immorality, what is a little less vile pleases us as a thing most pure—so long as we confine our minds within the limits of human corruption. Just so, an eye to which nothing is shown but black objects judges something dirty white or even rather darkly mottled to be whiteness itself. Indeed, we can discern still more clearly from the bodily senses how much we are deluded in estimating the powers of the soul. For if in broad daylight we either look down upon the ground or survey whatever meets our view round about, we seem to ourselves endowed with the strongest and keenest sight; yet when we look up to the sun and gaze straight at it, that power of sight which was particularly strong on earth is at once blunted and confused by a great brilliance, and thus we are compelled to admit that our keenness in looking upon things earthly is sheer dullness when it comes to the sun. So it happens in estimating our spiritual goods. As long as we do not look beyond the earth, being quite content with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue, we flatter ourselves most sweetly, and fancy ourselves all but demigods. Suppose we but once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and to ponder his nature, and how completely perfect are his righteousness, wisdom, and power—the straightedge to which we must be shaped. Then, what masquerading earlier as righteousness was pleasing in us will soon grow filthy in its consummate wickedness. What wonderfully impressed us under the name of wisdom will stink in its very foolishness. What wore the face of power will prove itself the most miserable weakness. That is, what in us seems perfection itself corresponds ill to the purity of God.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 35–38.

A restoration of who we were created to be.

23 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by in Anthropology, Christology, Union With Christ

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Calvin claims that the substance of human nature is good. As he states in the Institutes, the original, created human nature is not only good; it is “united to God.” Indeed Adam, is righteous through a “participation in God.” However, in the fall, the accidental characteristic of sinning is added, alienating human beings from God, from neighbor, and ultimately from themselves. In this fallen state, human beings seek their identity “in themselves” or “in the flesh”. They seek to be human apart from God. But this is simply repeating the sin of Adam- following one’s own wisdom rather than lovingly trusting God. While fallen humans share the accidental characteristic of sinning, this characteristic does not completely vanquish the imago Dei, which Calvin says is a “participation in God.” Again, this characterization of the imago Dei makes sense with Calvin’s view of humanity: to be fully human is to be united to God., and although sin seeks autonomy from God, there is still a trace of this union with or participation in God in all humanity.

In redemption, then, is where Calvin’s Aristotelian distinctions do especially important work. When Paul speaks about being “crucified with Christ” and putting to death the flesh or the old self, is this misanthropic? Does this make salvation a rupture of identity — leaving behind all that we were and taking only what is new? No, Calvin says. The Christian life, involving the mortification of the flesh, is a restoration of who we were created to be.

 

J. Todd Billings, Union With Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2011), 44.

Why the genealogies in the Bible?

29 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by in Hermeneutics, Image of God, Psalms

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Should you open the Bible to 1 Chronicles, you will find:

17 The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. And the sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Meshech.
18 Arpachshad fathered Shelah, and Shelah fathered Eber.
19 To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg (for in his days the earth was divided), and his brother’s name was Joktan.
20 Joktan fathered Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah,
21 Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah,
22 Obal, Abimael, Sheba,
23 Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab; all these were the sons of Joktan.

1 Chronicles 1:17-23. It goes more or less in the same manner for pages. How is one supposed to understand such lists?

Calvin begins the Institutes of the Christian Religion with the observation that our knowledge consists of knowing God and knowing ourselves in relation to God (this is a gross simplification, but sufficient for our purposes). Gerald Bray in his book God is Love takes Calvin’s observation, turns it into three questions and then applies the questions to the text.

Bray first notes that a Christian must “make spiritual sense of passages like these” (59). Therefore, he asks three questions.

First question: “What do the genealogies reveal about God?” You see in the lists the names of human beings going from generation to generation — hundreds upon hundreds and thousands upon thousand whom God did not forget. Since the genealogies occur in the context of God’s dealings with humanity in light of God’s covenants, the genealogies, “tell us that he is a faithful Lord, who keeps his covenant from generation to another” (59). In Ecclesiastes 1:4, Qoheleth writes, A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever.

But above and greater than even the earth is the Creator of heaven and earth who remains faithful despite our failings:

11 The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;
13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful- for he cannot deny himself.

2 Timothy 2:11-13.

Second question, “What do the genealogies say about us?” Look at the lists: the men and women are nothing more than words, funny sounds – but we do not attach the sounds to any human being. Thus, the answer to Bray’s question is, “[F]rom the worlds point of view, most of us are nobodies” (59). That is a painful observation, but true.

It is painful, because we all know that we must be more valuable than to be a “nobody” — and yet, in the end, most of will be invisible to history. And even those who will be written down will become more and more obscure over time. Proof: Quick, name any ruler of the Hittite Empire.

Now, note Bray’s answer: It is in the eyes of all humanity that we are nobody — but the memory of the world is not the whole story. Think again: What if these men and women did not exist? What if they died without children? God has kept his words among human beings; and God has exercised his power before human beings, “We are part of a great cloud of witnesses, a long chain of faithful people who have lived for God in the place where he put them.”

Now, this does not end the analysis: There is knowledge of God and knowledge of humanity — there is also the point of interaction, “Finally, what do the genealogies say about God’s dealings with us?”

Before you jump to his answer, think for a moment. God has not abandoned history to blind forces. God has not gone far away and forgotten (even when we fear that we may be lost to space and time). But these lists tell us plainly that God has not forgotten, “They tell us that we are called to be obedient and to keep the faith we have inherited, passing it on to the next generation. They tell us that there is a purpose in our callings that goes beyond us” (59).

In short, while the genealogies demonstrate that we may be little in the eyes of men and women with little memory and little understanding; they also tell us that we part of the greater story of God’s work in the world.

There is then an application, We know that we exist for great things. We know that our life must be more than sensation, food, sleep. We all understand that there should be some magnificent about us. We desire such things, because we were made for such things. It was built into us when God created us:

3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
4 what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?
5 Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet,
7 all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field,
8 the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas.

Psalm 8:3-8. We were created as the capstone of creation — we were created in the image of God. Now sin and death have obscured that image, but the stamp is not gone. Indeed, God’s covenant and end have been directed toward restoring that image:

9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices
10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

Colossians 3:9-11. Thus, when one is found in Christ, the gruesome weight of history which wears us down to invisibility is undone in Christ. Sin’s dominion is ended in the death of Christ. The waste of death is overcome in the resurrection of Christ. Alienation gone in the reconciliation of God and human beings in Jesus Christ. The genealogies with their endless story of death and death point us toward the need of Christ.