Tag Archives: John

Sermon Outline, John 1:11

24 Tuesday May 2016

Posted by in John, Preaching, Sermons, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

John 1:11 (ESV)

11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.

How to preach this.
There are three parts to the verse
An action: he came
The recipients of the action: his own
The response: rejection

I. He Came

Implications:
a) If he came, he was not there before: why the absence? (Gen. 3)
b) The waiting for the Messiah
c) There was no ability to compel God to come (the idea of compelling God is at the heart of idolatry)
d) Parallels to the parables (e.g. Luke 19:11)

A Miracle
What a wonder is here:
a) The Incarnation
b) The distance between dark & light, creature & Creator

II.His Own
a)His own by creation
b)His own by covenant/promise
c) Contrast, those under the New Covenant will receive him — these will come by conquest

III. Rejection
a) They could see him
b) Killed him
c) They did not understand (1 Cor. 2:8, 2 Cor. 4:4)
d) This will turn to judgment

Fellowship with the Son

30 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by in 1 John, 1 Peter, John

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

John 13:34–35 (ESV)

34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Shepherds Conference 2015, Sinclair Ferguson, “The Holy Spirit and Inerrancy”

07 Saturday Mar 2015

Posted by in Bibliology, Christology, John, Pneumatology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Sinclair Ferguson
The Holy Spirit & Inerrancy

John 14:15–17 (ESV)

15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

(The Spirit who had dwelt in and on Jesus would come to the believers at Pentecost. There is no other Spirit who indwells the believer.)

John 14:15–31 (ESV)

15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.
25 “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. 28 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe. 30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me, 31 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here.

 

John 15:26–27 (ESV)

26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. 27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.

John 16:12–15 (ESV)

12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

John 17:8 (ESV)

8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

John 20:30–31 (ESV)

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The Scriptures Come to Us as a Gift of the Holy Trinity:

When our fathers spoke about the Trinity, they noted two basic truths of the Trinity’s communication to human beings & creation. When God does something all three persons of the Trinity are operative: such as in incarnation, the sending of the Spirit. The external works of the Trinity are indivisible.

Doctrine of the Appropriations: Each person of the Trinity engages in work in a unique way. Only the Son died; only the Father can be praised for sending him.

[[opera ad extra (Lat., works to the outside) Also, notae externae. Activities and effects by which the Trinity is manifested outwardly. They include creation, preservation, and government of the universe as a function of the Father; redemption as a function of the Son; and inspiration, regeneration, and sanctification as a function of the Holy Spirit.
opera ad intra (Lat., works to the inside) Also, notae internae. Immanent and intransitive activities of the Trinity or actions which the three persons of the Trinity exercise toward one another, such as the eternal generation of the Son and the Procession of the Holy Spirit. — Nelson’s Dictionary]]
The same principles apply to the creation of the Scripture.

The Appointment of the Apostles:

These men were called to be eyewitnesses to the acts of Jesus. They in particular received the Holy Spirit to become the prophets, the spokesmen of Jesus for the New Age: New Age, new prophets (the apostles).

Three Aspects of How Jesus Sends the Spirit to the Apostles; particularly in relations to their writing Scriptures.

First: The sending of the Spirit to the Apostles is for the purpose to give the Word to the Church. John 13 through the end is sometimes called the book of glory (as opposed to the book of signs). Calvin: the other gospels show us Christ’s body; John shows us Christ’s soul.

Judas has gone out into the night; Jesus can now bare his soul to those whom he will not lose.

Jesus tells the Apostles that he is sending the Spirit so that they can give the word of truth to the church. The Son will ask the Father to send the Spirit.

As Peter alludes in his sermon, Pentecost is the evidence of a hidden event of God: What they see is the Son asking the Father, who gives the nations to the Son, sending the Spirit.

When the Spirit comes he will take what the Father has given to the Son.

This passage in John shows not merely salvation but also bibliology.

Stage One: Jesus is giving them the Spirit to empower them to be his spokesmen. The Spirit will come to empower the apostles to his disciples.

Notice the Amen statement: 13:16 & 20,
John 13:20 (ESV)

20 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”

This is the pattern of a prophet: When Moses speaks, it is God who speaks. When Aaron speaks, it is Moses spokes.

Sheliam: (sending) was as the man himself.

This is seen in the story of those [the man] who went to Jesus for the Centurion’s servant. A man who spoke as sent for another spoke as the man himself — thus, that man himself spoke. Analogy: power of attorney.

The Apostles have the power of attorney (so to speak).

That is why we are not embarrassed at
John 20:23 (ESV)

23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

We see this in how Jesus relates to the Father: Jesus is sent as the representative of the Father. The Spirit is another parakelet, of the same sort as Jesus.

Stage Two: The Spirit comes to the apostles to give the New Testament to the Church.

John 14:26,

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

16:13, while he the Spirit not speak on his own authority? He is God. The pattern of sending.

16:12

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Jesus is going to speak to the apostles later through the Spirit.

Jesus is not speaking to us or about us at this time, because we were not there.

The Spirit is going to come and he is going to breathe out Scripture through you (not me).

There is an economic unity with the Spirit and the Son as to Scripture.

There are many things you still need to learn. My Spirit will be to you as I have been to you.

Stage Three: The Spirit comes as the Spirit of Truth: which guarantees the truthfulness, the inerrancy of what he gives to the Church.

Jesus repeatedly refers to the Spirit of Truth.

The Spirit of Truth who the world cannot know, receive.

The Spirit will bear witness about me.

As the Spirit of Truth he will lead the apostles into all truth.

Jesus sends the apostles into the world with the words.

The possibility that the Spirit lied to the apostles is the same possibility as the Father lying to the Son or the Son lying to the apostles.

Jesus affirms the inerrancy of the OT. He then sends his apostles to show that the OT prophecy was fulfilled in him. How could we possibly think that Jesus would send them to write an errant Scripture.

Think of the fact the Spirit killed those who lied to him (Acts 5): could he have possibly lied to the Church through the apostles. The Holy Spirit has no bad breath, my brothers.

Stage Four: It is this work of the Spirit that Jesus’ prayer in John 17 makes effectual in the apostles and in the world.

17:8, I am praying for them — the ones the Father has given to them.

What is it: I have given them the words
18: as you sent me into the world, with your words, so I have sent them into the world with my words.

And then asks for those who will believe in Jesus through the apostles’ words.

Stage Five: John understands that his Gospel is answer to Jesus’ prayer.

These things are written : gegrapthi, the language which is used of Scripture: the Gospel is calling itself Scripture.

Jesus gives the Spirit & the Word. These things are written that you may believe through this Word.

The idea that the apostles were ignorant of the fact that they were giving Scripture to the NT is utterly indefensible on the basis of the what NT says of itself.

What a moment it must have been for John as he was writing the Gospel: he is writing that Jesus’ prayer was answered through John’s Gospel.

Father to Son words, Son sends the Spirit to the apostles, who themselves the words started from the Father: he is writing and seeing Jesus’ prayer answered. What John as given to the Church is the word of Truth — which is as reliable as any word the Father has spoken to the Son.

The Scripture’s very existence is to depend upon a theology of inerrancy.

it is not just the integrity of the Scriptures is at stake; rather the very integrity of the relationships within the Trinity. The Father does not lie to the Son.The Son does not lie to the Spirit. The Spirit does not lie to the apostles. This knowledge underscores the authority of the apostles’ writing.

That is why Paul says that we can “take note of that person”. How does have that arrogance: it is not Paul’s authority but rather the Father’s, Son’s Spirit’s.

Application:

One’s conviction that the Scripture is God-breathed and utterly without error comes through in the way in which one preaches.

It transforms those who gaze through the unveiled words, the inerrant word.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof.

[His mother on why they could not have sugar on their porridge but rather had salt: Because that’s the way the English eat it.]

Inerrancy matters because it honors the Spirit who glorifies the Son who glorifies the Father.

If it is the truth itself that ensures our unbelief

28 Thursday Feb 2013

Posted by in John, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

“Fourth, we must not underestimate the impact of sin on our ability to think through these matters clearly. A substantial element in our original fall was the unbridled lust for self-sufficiency, for independent knowledge. We wanted to be the center of the universe—and that is the heart of all idolatry. John 8:45 reports Jesus addressing his opponents in these shocking words: “Yet because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me!” If it is the truth itself that ensures our unbelief, how deep and tragic and abominable is our lostness. Small wonder, then, that God does not present himself to us in such a way that we may feel we can control him. Those who demand signs of Jesus are firmly rebuked, for he knows that to give in to such demands would be to submit to the agenda of others. He would quickly be domesticated, nothing more than a magical, spiritual genie.”

Excerpt From: D. A. Carson. “Collected Writings on Scripture.” Crossway Books & Bibles, 2010-07-10. iBooks.

How the love of God purifies the heart

13 Wednesday Feb 2013

Posted by in Church History, George Muller, John, Mortification, Submission

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

“Truly to grasp this fact is the beginning of a true and saving faith—what the Spirit calls ” laying hold.” He who believes and knows that God so loved him first, finds himself loving God in return, and faith works by love to purify the heart, transform the life, and overcome the world.

It was so with George Muller. He found in the word of God one great fact: the love of God in Christ. Upon that fact faith, not feeling, laid hold; and then the feeling came naturally without being waited for or sought after. The love of God in Christ constrained him to a love—infinitely unworthy, indeed, of that to which it responded, yet supplying a new impulse unknown before. What all his father’s injunctions, chastisements, entreaties, with all the urgent dictates of his own conscience, motives of expediency, and repeated resolves of amendment, utterly failed to effect, the love of God both impelled and enabled him to do—renounce a life of sinful self-indulgence. Thus early he learned that double truth, which he afterwards passionately loved to teach others, that in the blood of God’s atoning Lamb is the Fountain of both forgiveness and cleansing.”

Excerpt From: Arthur Tappan Pierson. “George Müller of Bristol.” James Nisbet. iBooks.

The Crisis of Word and Truth

17 Thursday Jan 2013

Posted by in Apologetics, Carl F Henry, Genesis, John

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

The Crisis of Word and Truth

NO FACT OF CONTEMPORARY Western life is more evident than its growing distrust of final truth and its implacable questioning of any sure word.[1]

The first essay in Henry’s six volumes, God Revelation and Authority is “The Crisis of Word and Truth”. He notes the conflict between two worldviews: The God of revelation who speaks versus a meaningless and incoherent “word”. The sound of words has remained and human beings still function and interact, but Word as a primary and stable truth – the Logos of God – that has come under attack.[2]

He wrote this essay without a discussion of deconstruction (my college copy of Spivak’s English version of Of Grammatology is dated 1974, 1976; the first printing of Henry’s essays are dated 1976) or the (for obvious reasons) the Internet. Thus, his discussions of both distance between meaning and words, as well as the ubiquity of media, not only remain true but have actually become more certain.

On one hand we have the Word of God. Christianity posits Spirit and Word as the primary constitutes of existence. First, God is spirit (John 4:24). As the Westminster Shorter Catechism has it:

Q: What is God?

A: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

John 1:1 famously explains “The Word was God.” The knowledge of God comes about because God speaks. Nothing would exist apart from the Speaking God: “God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3). The material world of images comes after the Spirit and Word.[3] The world itself exists, because the Word of God upholds it, continually (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:3).

On the other hand stands the cacophony of media. Now, Henry does not denigrate or despise the media because it is media. Rather the trouble lies in what it does. It has taken the pre-existing problem of meaning and world (which human beings attempt to escape; Romans 1:18). However, it has “indubitably widened and compounded the crisis of word and truth” (18).

Henry notes the common criticism that the nature of the media is such that it does not respond to matters of significance with significant attention.  He quotes Malcolm Muggeridge, “’the fact that the medium has no message. In the last resort, the media have nothing to say ….’” (18).

The media portray matters for the purpose of gaining attention and thus,

Final truth, changeless good, and the one true and living God are by default largely programed out of the real world. Despite occasional ethical commentary and some special coverage of religious events and moral issues, the media tend more to accommodate than to critique the theological and ethical ambiguities of our time. Their main devotion to what gratifies the viewing and reading audiences plays no small part in eclipsing God and fixed moral principles from contemporary life (18-19).

The barrage of immediate gratification removes the sense of shame and horror that should accompany the sight of such.  Public degradation engenders sports, not shame and sorrow. He again Muggeridge on the matter of “’accustoming us to the gradual deterioration of our values’” (19). While every age has thought itself (at least by some) to be the depths of depravity, it goes without saying that much which would have been unthinkable at the time of the essay would be unremarkable in public media today.[4]

Should I read this morning’s news, I would learn of extraordinary acts of pain and sorrow throughout the world. My view of the matter would be incessant, vivid, personal – and yet, there would be (and is) not easy matter of involvement. Thus, I come to human suffering (and glory) as peeping Tom. I cannot form an appropriate moral response – I cannot really do much. Hucksters will try to take my money. Politicians will use words to gain some immediate attention (and most often do nothing remotely useful).

This process affects human beings spiritually. It is a direct affront to the proclamation of God’s truth. It is an affront to the bare concept of “truth” – which ultimately lies with the primal temptation wherein the Serpent questions, word and meaning and logic:

4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:4–5 (ESV)

While individual actors seek to turn truth word to manipulation and sales-pitch for personal gain (I pity the poor soul who takes political rhetoric at face value, much like one how gives a scorpion a ride[5]), the ultimate object is spiritual: it is an attack upon the very concept of revelation by God in Word – which is the heart of Christianity.

Some may think that little loss. However, the basis of Christian revelation is also the basis of what it is to be human:[6]

To strip words of any necessary or legitimate role as a revelatory resource denies not only the intelligibility of revelation, but also the very rationality of human existence. Nonverbal experience cannot supply today’s generation with fruitful alternatives to the spiritual emptiness of the times; the cavernous silence of a speechless world echoes not a single syllable of hope. To deverbalize an already depersonalized society is all the more to dehumanize it.

How can one engage in either true personal interaction or societal and corporate interaction when words are stripped of stability, and promise of its hold? Robert Frost ends his wonderful poem, “Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening” with marvelous point,

            But I have promises to keep ….

What human interaction can there be without promise? Yes, human beings can live and breathe and die. Yes, by sheer force and violence a political entity can force itself along. But what humanity remains? What truth or beauty, what love or charm remain?

Henry ends with the proposition that it is the duty of the Christian to not succumb to the spirit of this age, but rather proclaim the “divine invasion” of the Logos, the truth of God, the prophetic Word.

Robert Frost reading, “Stopping by the Woods”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfOxdZfo0gs

 

[1] Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry, vol. 1, God, Revelation, and Authority (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 16-17.

[2] Although not discussed in this essay, Nietzsche’s arguments in Genealogy of Morals would certainly have an interesting bearing upon the point.

[3] This does require any Gnostic “fall” into matter. The physical world was created “very good.” The distress of the physical derives from sin (Romans 8:20). The redemption of humanity is not out of the physical world into a purely “spiritual” existence, as if the trouble were physicality. Rather, the redemption is to a resurrection, to a New Heavens and New Earth (1 Cor. 15:42-49; Rev. 21 & 22). Thus, Christianity differs strongly from either a Gnostic spite of the physical or a materialist’s denial of the spiritual.

[4] Some may point to matters of “racism” [I have word in quotations, because as a Christian, I must consider the matter of “races” itself suspect and repellant; there is a single human race; there are various cultural structures which people create, but these have no ground separate grounds of human value and being] as an area of advancement.  However, polite society has in some instances moved around certain discourse markers, the same nonsensical “racial” beliefs still exist. I remember being perplexed as a child that somehow George Washington Carver did not “belong” to me – even though he was a an American (as I was) and Christian (as was I) and a Scientist (which I longed to be), but that his skin color put him into a different and alien category – why is that primary to anything?

[6] As a Christian, I think it obvious that the correlative lies in the fundamental truth of the Christian claim.

Fellowship in Psalm 15

08 Tuesday Jan 2013

Posted by in John, John Calvin, Psalms

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Psalm 15 may be understood to preach salvation by behavior, but such a reading would make heaven a hotel to be earned. Rather, we must see the Psalm speaking of a home in which one may live happily:

He who would dwell with God in His house must adapt himself to the arrangements of God’s house.—We may be invited to God’s house and table and yet not gain the enjoyment of that which God offers us.—To desire communion with God and transgress the commands of God are irreconcilable with one another; for vice separates God and man from one another.—He who truly has and seeks communion with God, has and seeks communion likewise with the pious, but avoids the society of the ungodly. The law remains constantly valuable as a mirror, bar and bridle.—He who wishes to dwell forever with God, must inquire after God in time and seek intercourse with God on earth, and for this purpose use the means of grace offered by God according to the order of salvation.

John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, Carl Bernhard Moll et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Psalms (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 119. I do not seek the manner of life as a means of manipulation or to earn a seat with Christ. Rather, I seek relationship with God and it is in the manner of one’s life that the communion is grows.

My children do not become children by behavior – yet God’s children are adopted into a home (Rom. 8:15). However, our relationship will be affected by their behavior. I may spend a joyous time of fellowship or a time of correction: both spring from love and both seek the good of our fellowship. But the means of expressing my love differ.

Now anyone who truly has come into God’s family will seek by all means to love and thus obey:

21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me. John 14:21–24 (ESV)

We get off on the wrong foot if we think of obedience to the words of Christ as obeying traffic laws. I obey the laws specifically to avoid contact with the government. For the Christian obedience is a means of worship, it is a means of pursuing fellowship with the God of creation.

Calvin, commenting on John 14:21c, writes:

And I will manifest myself to him. Knowledge undoubtedly goes before love; but Christ’s meaning was, “I will grant to those who purely observe my doctrine, that they shall make progress from day to day in faith;” that is, “I will cause them to approach more nearly and more familiarly to me.” Hence infer, that the fruit of piety is progress in the knowledge of Christ; for he who promises that he will give himself to him who has it rejects hypocrites, and causes all to make progress in faith who, cordially embracing the doctrine of the Gospel, bring themselves entirely into obedience to it. And this is the reason why many fall back, and why we scarcely see one in ten proceed in the right course; for the greater part do not deserve that he should manifest himself to them. It ought also to be observed, that a more abundant knowledge of Christ is here represented as an extraordinary reward of our love to Christ; and hence it follows that it is an invaluable treasure.

John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), Jn 14:21–24. Obedience is a means of approach, it is a vantage point from which we can see Christ, it is a home in which we can rest with him.

This then speaks to the motivation to pursue obedience. Obedience to Christ is not the obedience of slave to master, but rather like one who follows the map to a friend’s house. There is nothing servile about following directions to gain a friend’s company.

Stupendous Love

04 Friday Jan 2013

Posted by in Ante-Nicene, Edward Taylor, John, Lord's Supper, Meditation, Puritan

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Edward Taylor

Stupendous Love[1]

Stupendous Love! All saints‘astonishment.!

Bright angels are black motes in this sun‘s light.

Heav’n‘s canopy the paintice[2] to God‘s tent

Can’t cover’t neither with its breadth, nor height.

Its glory doth all glory else out run,

Beams of bright glory to’t are motes i’th’sun.

 

My soule had caught an ague[3], and like Hell

Her thirst did burn: she to each spring did fly,

But this bright blazing love[4] did spring a well

Of aqua-vitae[5] in the deity,

Which on the top of Heav’ns high hill out burst

And down came running thence t’allay my thirst.

 

But how it came, amazeth all communion[6].

God’s only Son doth hug humanity[7],

Into his very person. By which union

His human veins its golden gutters lie.

And rather than my soul should die by thirst,

These golden pipes, to give me drink, did burst[8].

 

This liquor[9] brew’d, thy sparkling art divine

Lord, in thy crystal vessels did up tun[10],

(Thine ordinances[11],) which all Earth o’re shine

Set in thy rich wine cellars out to run[12].

Lord, make thy butler draw, and fill with speed

My beaker full: for this is drink indeed[13].

 

Whole buts[14] of this blessed nectar shining stand

Locked up with saph’rine taps, whose splendid flame

Too bright do shine for brightest angels’s hands

To touch, my Lord[15]. Do thou untap the same.

Oh! make thy crystal buts of red wine bleed

Into my crystal glass this drink-indeed.

 

How shall I praise thee then? My blottings jar

And wrack my rhymes to pieces in thy praise.

Thou breath’st thy vein still in my pottinger[16]

To lay my thirst, and fainting spirits raise.

Thou makest glory’s chiefest grape[17] to bleed

Into my cup: And this is drink-indeed.

 

Nay, though I make no pay for this red wine[18],

And scarce do say I thank-ye-for’t; strange thing!

Yet were thy silver skies my beer bowl fine

I find my Lord, would fill it to the brim.

Then make my life, Lord, to thy praise proceed

For thy rich blood, which is my drink-indeed.

Incidentally, the practice of communion is recorded in Justin Martyr’s first apology:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, [8 highlights] and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss.3 There is then brought to the president of the brethren4 bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; [8 highlights] and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

CHAP. LXVI.—OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία5 [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, [11 highlights] and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh[19].  For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done.  For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin” In , in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 185.

[1] General argument of the poem: The poem itself is a pre-communion meditation. The poet’s soul thirsts “like Hell” due to the damage of sin. He compares sin to a fever which drives his soul to thirst. His thirst can be slaked only with the “wine” of Christ’s blood, shed for sinners (2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV),  For our sake he [God] made him [Jesus Christ] to be sin [a sin offering; in the Mosaic Law, a sacrifice made to atone for one’s sin] who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.  1 Peter 2:21–25 (ESV) 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 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. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.) The balance of the poem is a praise and desire for the blood of Christ.

[2] I could not find the meaning of this word. It does not appear in the two volume OED, and it does not appear in the google ngram viewer.

[3] An illness. Here: sin: Sin has drained the poet dry of the water of life and hence bound for hell he thirsts like hell.

[4] John 3:16 (ESV)  “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

[5] Water of life: John 4:13–14 (ESV) 13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

[6] The Puritans understood the Incarnation as the greatest act of love and the most incomprehensible of miracles.  Thomas Watson, in A Body of Divinity, wrote, “Behold here a sacred riddle or paradox – ‘God manifest in the flesh.’ That man should be made in God’s image was a wonder, but that God should be made in man’s image is a greater wonder. That the Ancient of Days should be born, that he who thunders in the heavens should cry in the cradle; Qui tonitruat in caelis, clamat in cunabulis; qui regit sidera, sugit ubera; that he who rules the stars should suck the breast; that a virgin should conceive; that Christ should be made of a woman, and of that woman which himself made; that the branch should bear the vine; that the mother should be younger than the child she bare, and the child in the womb bigger than the mother; that the human nature should not be God, yet one with God; this was not only mirum but miraculum. Christ taking flesh is a mystery we shall never fully understand till we come to heaven, when our light shall be clear, as well as our love perfect.”

David Clarkson, in the Love of Christ, wrote,

These are large expressions of love indeed. But the proper act of love is union; love is ever accompanied with a strong inclination to unite with its object, which, by some secret and powerful virtue, as it were by the emission of some magnetical rays, attracts the lover with a restless solicitation, and never ceases till they meet and unite, as intimately as their nature will permit. The grossness of the matter in corporeal parts will not admit of such intimacy and penetration as love affects; but souls, they can mix, twine about each other, and twist into most strict oneness. We see this effect in Christ’s love. His affection moved him to union with us; and one degree of his union was the assuming our nature, by which Christ and we are one flesh. He may say to us as Adam, ‘Thou art bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh’ Nay, we are not only one flesh, but one spirit: 2 Cor. 6:17, ‘He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.’ O transcendent love! As if some man, out of love to a worm, should take upon him the form and nature of that irrational, contemptible creature. Hence David (in that a type of Christ) calls himself ‘a worm, and no man,’ Ps. 22. Yet Christ’s love, in being incarnate, is infinitely more; as the disproportion betwixt him and us is infinitely greater than between us and worms. This was greater love, greater honour, than ever he would vouchsafe to angels: ‘He took not upon him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham.’ But the love of Christ would not rest here; he thinks us yet not near enough, and therefore holds forth a more intimate union in such resemblances as these: John 15:5, ‘I am the vine, ye are the branches.’ We are united as closely to Christ as the branches to the vine. More than this: Eph. 1:22, 23, ‘gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body.’ We are united to Christ, as the body to the head. Each of us may look upon ourselves as a part of Christ; so that whatever glory and happiness shines in our head, reflects upon us; and whatever dignity and injury is cast upon us, it reaches our head.

[7] That is, the Son of God became a human being: Romans 8:3 (ESV)

3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

[8] The blood of Jesus Christ was given to slack the thirst brought on by sin.

[9] Liquor merely means something to drink.

[10] A tun is a large cask or barrel for wine, beer or ale. Incidentally, the Puritans did not forbid alcohol, despite the statements made by some at a much later date.

[11] Baptism and the Lord’s Supper/Communion – which Taylor has in view here.

[12] The wine which represents the Lord’s blood.

[13] In John 6, Jesus preaches that his body and blood must be taken to receive forgiveness. This, incidentally, is a point of contention between Roman Catholics and Protestants over the nature of the elements in communion.  The Roman Catholics hold to transubstantiation in which the elements become the actual body and blood of the Lord (in substance, not accident); while Protestants hold other positions (consubstantiation, real presence, symbolic memorial). The line alluded to by Taylor comes from  John 6:55 (AV)  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Incidentally, communion is one of the earliest elements of Christian worship recorded outside of the Bible. Justin Martyr wrote in his first apology:

[14] A container for the wine.

[15] Angels are not able nor worthy to drink nor give the blessing of Christ’s death. Peter writes in 1 Peter 1:10-12:

10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

And, Hebrews 1:14, “Are they [angels] not ministering spirits sent forth to minister to them, who shall be heirs of salvation?” [The heirs of salvation are human beings whom God redeems.]

[16] The OED states that a pottinger is a “porringer”, which is a small bowl, often with a handle, for soup, broth, porridge, etc.

[17] Jesus.

[18] Salvation is a “free gift” (Rom. 5:16-18; Eph. 2:8).

[19] The editors of the translation provide this note,

 

This passage is claimed alike by Calvinists, Lutherans, and Romanists; and, indeed, the language is so inexact, that each party may plausibly maintain that their own opinion is advocated by it. [But the same might he said of the words of our Lord himself; and, if such widely separated Christians can all adopt this passage, who can be sorry?] The expression, “the prayer of His word,” or of the word we have from Him, seems to signify the prayer pronounced over the elements, in imitation of our Lord’s thanksgiving before breaking the bread. [I must dissent from the opinion that the language is “inexact:” he expresses himself naturally as one who believes it is bread, but yet not “common bread.” So Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (A.D. 490.), “By the sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them,” etc. (See the original in Bingham’s Antiquities, book xv. cap. 5. See Chrysost., Epist. ad. Cæsarium, tom. iii. p. 753. Ed. Migne.) Those desirous to pursue this inquiry will find the Patristic authorities in Historia Transubstantionis Papalis, etc., Edidit F. Meyrick, Oxford, 1858. The famous tractate of Ratranin (A.D. 840) was published at Oxford, 1838, with the homily of ælfric (A.D. 960) in a cheap edition.]

 

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885).

Some Points of Comparison Between Ecclesiastes 6:10-7:2

02 Wednesday Jan 2013

Posted by in Ecclesiastes, Genesis, John

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

1. Whatever has come to be has already been named (Eccl. 6:10).

Cross References: Genesis 2:19–20 (ESV):  19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field….

Notes: (1) All that exists has come to be from God’s effort – it all pre-exists Adam. God created, then Adam named. Ironically, it is the second Adam who created the first Adam’s world (Luke 3:23 & 38; John 1:3).

(2) Naming: Adam named everything – we all live in that world. Whatever Adam names the thing “that was its name.”

 

2. …and it is known what man is (Eccl. 6:10).

Cross-references: then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. Genesis 2:7 (ESV)

By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Genesis 3:19 (ESV)

And: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27 (ESV)

And: And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done” Genesis 8:21 (ESV). This point returns with Jesus: 24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man. 1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. John 2:24–3:1 (ESV).

 

Notes: Bitter irony, Adam (male & female, Gen. 5:2) created in the image of God, raised from the dust by the breath of God return to the dust for their rebellion. Adam’s son Seth was born in Adam’s image (Gen. 5:3; there is some dispute concerning the full scope of the meaning here: the very least, we must recognize that Adam could convey nothing beyond what he possessed). The human being is corrupted – and God knows it.

 

3. And that he is not able to dispute with one stronger than he (Eccl. 6:10).

Cross-reference: But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” Genesis 3:9 (ESV)

Notes: Adam could not dispute with God. Adam’s rebellion brought on Adam’s ruin. The serpent’s promise (Gen. 3:4-5) turned out to be utterly untrue.  Scripture repeats this them: Job 38:1-2; John 19:11).

 

4. The more words, the more vanity, and what is the advantage to man? Ecclesiastes 6:11 (ESV)

Cross-reference: Genesis 3:10, “And he [Adam] said ….”

Notes: We have never been able to talk our way out of our problem.

And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Matthew 6:7 (ESV) Job 38:2. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 7:21 (ESV)

 

5. For who knows what is good for man while he lives the few days of his vain life, Ecclesiastes 6:12 (ESV)

Cross-references:

Genesis 2:10, “and God saw that it was good.” Etc.

Genesis 2:18, “It is not good that the man should be alone …..”

  Notes: We do not know what is good, despite our eating from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Gen. 2:9, 27; 3:5 & 8. The irony that having sought to determine good – we can no longer determine good. Rom. 1:28. Why not relativism? How can claim a privileged place to actually understand the world? God knows  what is good – but we no longer do.

Ecclesiastes 7:1 et seq answer these questions. Things have become so topsy-turvy, that now death is better than life! Note that before sin, death was solely the evil promised (Gen. 2:17, 3:19).

6. which he passes like a shadow? Ecclesiastes 6:12

Cross-reference: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27 (ESV)

Notes: shadow, sel, sounds like image, selem. The words also bear a relationship to one-another:

Sel, comes from the root verb s-l-l, to be shaded or dusky.[1] The words by sound and concept are related to the word for shadow[2] – hence either an image or something insubstantial.[3] Hence a pun on the nature of Adam: He was created the image of God (selem) but became a mere shadow (sel). Man created for eternity becomes insubstantial and false (selem, a mere image, an idol).[4]

 

7.  For who can tell man what will be after him under the sun? Ecclesiastes 6:10

Cross-reference: Genesis 2:17 (ESV)

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Genesis 3:4 (ESV)

4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.

Genesis 3:19 (ESV)

19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Genesis 5:5 (ESV)

5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

Notes: God knows what will happen – even if we do not.  God told us what would happen with sin – and we sinned nonetheless. God binds the future we death; we can know nothing  beyond what discloses (John 3:12). Our attempts to gain knowledge around God leave us with idols:

Isaiah 41:21–24 (ESV)

21 Set forth your case, says the LORD; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. 22 Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. 23 Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. 24 Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you.

Concluding notes:

The human being has become bound in and bound with death, with vanity. The human being created to be a selem, an image of God, is now a selem-sel, a mere image or shadow. The ideas are brought together in Psalm 39:6 (Heb. 39:7):

Surely a man goes about as a shadow [selem, “image” in Gen. 1:27] Surely for nothing [Heb., hebel, “vanity” in Ecclesiastes] they are in turmoil; man heaps up wealth and does not know who will gather!

Indeed, Psalm 39 acts as a sort commentary on Ecclesiastes 6:10-7:14; or conversely, Ecclesiastes functions as a practical meditation on Psalm 39. Both are built around the rise and fall of Adam and our present status in this world. We cannot respond rightly to our circumstance until we take in starkly how painful we find our circumstance. Hence, the counsel which begins in Ecclesiastes7.

[1]

צֵל m. (f. Isa. 37:8, compare the form צִלָּה), with suff. צִלִּי (from the root צָלַל No. III) a shadow (Arab. ظِلُّ), Jud. 9:36; Ps. 80:11, etc. Metaph. Job 17:7, “all my members (are) like a shadow,” i.e. scarce a shadow of my body remains. Also—(a) used of anything fleeting and transient, Job 8:9; Psal. 102:12; Ecc. 8:13.—(b) of a roof which affords shade and protection (compare Lat. umbra); hence used for protection and defence; preserving sometimes however the image of a shadow, Psalm 17:8; 36:8; Isa. 16:3, “make thy shadow at noon as in the night,” i.e. afford a safe refuge in glowing heat. Isa. 23:4, “thou (O Jehovah) art a shadow in heat;” sometimes not retaining the image, Nu. 14:9; Ecc. 7:12. In plur. is used the form צְלָלִים.

 

Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2003), 709.

[2]

צֵל: probably a primary noun (Bauer-L. Heb. 454b), > III צלל; SamP. ṣål (Babylonian vocalisation צַל); MHeb., DSS (Kuhn Konkordanz 187); JArm. טֻלָּא, טוּלָּא, טְלָלָא; Sam. טל (Ben-H. Lit. Or. 2:578), טלל (see 3/2:240); טל and similarly in the comparable dialects of Aramaic, → BArm. parallel with טלל; Ug. ẓl (Gordon Textbook §19:1052; Aistleitner 2371; Fisher Parallels 1: p. 220 entry 270; on ẓlm (Dietrich-L.-S. Texte 1, 161:1) see Dietrich-Loretz UF 12 (1980) 382); Akk. ṣillu shade, covering, protection (AHw. 1101; CAD Ṣ: 189); cf. ṣillûlu cover (AHw. 1102; CAD Ṣ: 194) and ṣulūlu roof, canopy (AHw. 1111; CAD Ṣ: 242); Arb. ẓill; ? OSArb. ẓlt (Conti Chrest. 160b, uncertain) roof, roofing; Eth. ṣĕlālōt (Dillmann Lex. 1257); Tigr. ṣĕlāl (Littmann-H. Wb. 632a) shadow: shadow: sf. צִלִּי, צִלְּךָ, צִלֵּךְ, צִלּוֹ, צִלֲּלוֹ (Jb 4022, Bauer-L. Heb. 570t), צִלָּהּ, צִלָּם; pl. צְלָלִים (Bauer-L. Heb. 570t), cs. צִלְלֵי־; (Bauer-L. Heb. 570t), Is 388 and 2K 2011 (gloss) fem. :: 2K 209.10 masc. (THAT 2:223: 53 times); Bordreuil RHPhR 46 (1966) 372-387.

 

Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson and Johann Jakob Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999), 1024-25.

[3]

צָלַם an unused root, Æth. ጸልመ፡ TO BE SHADY, Arab. ظَِاَِم to be obscure, ظامةُ darkness. Hence—

 

צֶלֶם m. with suff. צַלְמוֹ—(1) a shadow, Psalm 39:7; metaph. used of any thing vain, Psal. 73:20. Hence—

(2) an image, likeness (so called from its shadowing forth; compare σκία, σκίασμα, σκιαγραφέω), Genesis 1:27; 5:3; 9:6; an image, idol, 2 Kings 11:18; Am. 5:26. (Syr. and Chald. ܨܠܰܡܐܳ, צַלְמָא id., Arab. صَنَمُ an image, the letters נ and ל being interchanged.)

 

צֶלֶם, צְלֵם Ch. emphat. state, צַלְמָא m. an image, idol, Dan. 2:31, seqq.; 3:1, seqq.

 

צַלְמוֹן (“shady”), [Zalmon, Salmon], pr.n.—(1) of a mountain in Samaria, near Shechem, Jud. 9:48; this apparently is the one spoken of as covered with snow, Ps. 68:15.

(2) of one of David’s captains, 2 Sa. 23:28.

 

צַלְמוֹנָה (“shady”), [Zalmonah], pr.n. of a station of the Israelites in the desert, Nu. 33:41.

 

צַלְמָוֶת f. pr. shadow of death (comp. of צֵל shadow, and מָוֶת death), poet. for very thick darkness, Job 3:5; 10:21; 28:3; 34:22; 38:17, שַׁעֲרֵיצַלְמָוֶת “the gates of darkness.”

 

צַלְמֻנָּע (perhaps for צֵלמְמֻנָּע “to whom shadow is denied”), [Zalmunna], pr.n. of a prince of the Midianites, Jud. 8:5; Ps. 83:12.

 

Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2003), 710-11.

[4]

  : I *צלם (Bauer-L. Heb. 458s; THAT 2:556f :: W.H. Schmidt WMANT 172 (1967) 1331: צֵל + מ‍); SamP. ṣā̊låm; MHeb. image, statue, idol; DSS (Kuhn Konkordanz 187; THAT 2:562); JArm. צַלְמָא; Sam.; Ph. (Jean-H. Dictionnaire 245; THAT 2:556); EmpArm. ṣlmʾ, ṣlmh the effigy, his effigy (Donner-R. Inschriften text 225:3, 6; text 226:2; Jean-H. Dictionnaire 245; Hoftijzer-Jongeling Dictionary 968: statue); Ug. ṣlm pny (Gordon Textbook text 1002:59 = Dietrich-L.-S. Texte 2, 31:61; Aistleitner 2319; cf. Gordon Textbook §19:2059); Akk. sbst. ṣalmu statue, figurine, image (AHw. 1078f; CAD Ṣ: 78): in particular: 1. the statue of a god; 2. the statue of a king; 3. a statue in general; 4. a figurine; 5. a relief, bas-relief; 6. metaphorical, a constellation, shape, likeness, representation; BArm. →צְלֵם; Syr. ṣalmā, ṣəlemtā; CPArm. ṣlm; Mnd. ṣilma (Drower-M. Dictionary 393b) image, idol, shape, form; Nab., Palm. Hatra ṣlm, ṣlmʾ and ṣlmtʾ statue (Jean-H. Dictionnaire 245; Hoftijzer-Jongeling Dictionary 968, ṣlm I; see also BArm. under צְלֵם); OSArb. ẓlm (Conti Chrest. 161a) and ṣlm (Conti Chrest. 224b) likeness, statue; Arb. ṣanam idol (Arm. loanword, see Fraenkel Fremdwörter 273): cs. צֶלֶם, sf. צַלְמוֹ, צַלְמֵנוּ, צַלְמָם; pl. cs. צַלְמֵי, sf. צְלָמָיו, צַלְמֵיכֶם: THAT 2:556-563.

  —1. statue, inscribed column 2K 1118/2C 2317.

  —2. idol Nu 3352 Ezk 720, Am 526 (text uncertain) צַלְמֵיכֶם probably meaning effigies of the Kēwān, Babylonian astral deities (see AHw. 420b kajjamānû; CAD Ṣ: 38a line 6ff kajamānu adj. b: “steady” as a name of Saturn) and sakkut (Sumerian dSAG.KUD, see E. Reiner Šurpu tablet 2 line 180; Rudolph KAT 13/2:207; Wolff BK 14/2:304; THAT 2:557).

  —3. pl.: —a. images, figures: צַלְמֵיזָכָר effigies of men Ezk 1617, צַלְמֵיכַשְׂדִּים pictures of the Chaldaeans carved into the wall Ezk 2314; —b. replicas, likenesses of the boils and mice 1S 65.11 (see THAT 2:557f).

  —4. a. transitory image Ps 397 (parallel with הֶבֶל), Ps 7320 text uncertain (parallel with חֲלוֹם) cj. for צַלְמָם prp. צַלְמוֹ (BHS) :: Würthwein Wort und Existenz 169: MT “their idol”; —b. the צֶלֶם of Ps 397 7320 belongs to II *צלם rather than to I, and so means silhouette, fleeting shadows, so e.g. Humbert Études sur le récit du paradis et de la chute 156; cf. Kopf VT 9 (1959) 272 and in general W.H. Schmidt WMANT 172 (1967) 1331.

  —5. likeness: —a. of a man as the צֶלֶם of God Gn 126f 96: for bibliography see Westermann BK 1/1:203-214; see further Barr BJRL 51 (1968) 11-26; Stamm “Zur Frage der Imago Dei im Alten Testament” (in Humanität und Glaube. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Guggisberg 243-253); Mettinger ZAW 86 (1974) 403-24; O.H. Steck FRLANT 115 (1975) 140567; O. Loretz Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen; THAT 2:558-562: man, God’s likeness, God’s image, i.e. he is God’s viceroy, representative or witness among the creatures; —b. the son as the צֶלֶם of his father Gn 53. †

 Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson and Johann Jakob Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999), 1028-29.

Herman Bavinck on Human Nature

23 Sunday Dec 2012

Posted by in 1 Timothy, Herman Bavinck, John, Thomas Watson

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

The Christian celebrating the incarnation of God in Jesus of Nazareth, does well to contemplate the wonder of the human being (see Thomas Watson, http://www.fivesolas.com/watson/humilia.htm ).

 

The Christian concern for human beings as human beings, whether of human beings unborn or human beings at advanced age and weakness seems striking strange to other people who don’t hold the same premise. Once a student in one of my classes let the States to go to Pakistan to bring supplies to people, most of whom were Muslim, suffering from the earthquake of 2005 (Kashmir earthquake).  He reported that many of the international supplies were pillaged before they could make to victims. While most of the help actually being delivered was delivered by Christians — which is strikingly odd considering the difficulty that Christians routinely face in Pakistan.

 

The atheist Matthew Parish famously stated that Africa needs Christianity (for an interesting take on this by an atheist, see, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/27/does-africa-need-god/)

 

Now, I am not so silly as to say as that everyone who claims Christianity acts remotely like a Christian. Nor do I do deny the decency and good that some atheists have done. Kurt Vonnegut the atheist novelist who penned many lines which made me think and shirk and laugh had a character quip in God Bless You Mr. Rosewater, There’s only one rule I know of babies, …you’ve got to be kind!

 

What I am stating is that Christianity rightly understood thinks the human being to be the pinnacle of God’s creation — the very image of God himself. And thus, the Christian must honor human beings as valuable because the human being exists.

 

In John 16:21, Jesus of the movement from pain to joy when a woman gives birth:

 

When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.

 

Note that, she rejoices because a “human being has been born in the world.”  The nature of this valuation of human beings often places Christians at marked disagreement with other human beings when it comes to political decisions.  And surely any number of inconsistencies between practice and theology could be waved as hypocrisy.

 

But only a Christian would be a hypocrite when it comes to matters of oppression or slavery or other misuse of human beings. Unless there is a greater moral context to make a judgment, a condemnation of slavery (say) is a matter of taste, not a matter of evil. Hatred of oppression may be a real subjective motive, but the subjective distaste does not make it “evil”.

 

One may argue that the Christian valuation of human is delusional (because it is a mere “preference” – as are all valuations), but it is the basis upon Christians base their understanding of ethics, morality and salvation.

 

The Christian must love another because they are human — such love is required to supersede even personal considerations and the response of the other:

 

44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

 

Matthew 5:44-45. Christian love is grounded in the nature of God and the nature of humanity. It is not bound in the nature of a particular immediate personal relationship.

 

Indeed, Christians would do go further in their practical love to other human beings were we to more fully consider our doctrine.  The Dutch theologian Bavinck writes (vol. 3 of his systematic theology) put this well:

 

Man is a rational animal, a thinking reed, a being existing between angels and animals, related to but distinct from both. He unites and reconciles within himself both heaven and earth, things both invisible and visible. And precisely as such he is the image and likeness of God. God is most certainly “spirit,” and in this respect also the angels are related to him. But sometimes there is reference also to his soul, and throughout Scripture all the peculiar psychic feelings and activities that are essentially human are also attributed to God. In Christ, God assumed the nature of humanity, not that of angels. And precisely on that account man, rather than the angels, is the image, son, and offspring of God. The spirituality, invisibility, unity, simplicity, and immortality of the human soul are all features of the image of God.

 

Thomas Adams put it thus, “Man as God’s creation left him was a goodly creature, an abridgement of heaven and earth, an epitome of God and the world; resembling God, who is spirit, in his soul; and the world, which is his body, in the composition of his. Deus maximus invisibilum, mundus maximus visibilium — God the greatest of invisible natures, the world the greatest of visible creatures; both brought into the little compass of man” (Mystical Bedlam, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 255).

The human being, the human, body and soul, is the great cross-roads of Creation. Jesus Christ as the human being is the point of intersection between God and human beings. It is for this reason he said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6).

 

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

           

(1 Timothy 2:5-6 ESV).