Archive | Bible and Theology RSS feed for this section

Mere Christianity’s Arguments in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

A few years back I read The Chronicles of Narnia aloud to my oldest two sons (we read them in the right order). The third-born is now 5 years old, and it’s his turn. The older boys are listening in, and we’re doing our best to keep them from revealing story-spoilers. I’m also trying to read Planet Narnia alongside the Chronicles, in the hope that Michael Ward will help me see more than I ever have before. He has me reading more attentively, and there’s a lot to which to attend.

In the first dialogue the children have with the Professor, Lewis presents him making sophisticated yet simple logical arguments. Remember the famous “liar, lunatic, or Lord” argument from Mere Christianity? That will make its appearance below, along with another that’s probably in either Mere Christianity or Miracles but I haven’t gone back to check. This second argument responds to the the idea that non-repeatable events are impossible, therefore the Bible’s miracles didn’t happen (so Hume, Strauss, Troeltsch, Ehrman, et al.). Along with this usually comes a challenge to the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

Lewis equips children and others who might read neither Mere Christianity nor Miracles to counter Troeltsch’s way of doing history, to credit eyewitness testimony, and to think through the liar, lunatic, or Lord question in this little dialogue between the Professor, Peter, and Susan regarding Lucy’s tale that she has entered Narnia:

Then Susan pulled herself together and said, ‘But Edmund said they had only been pretending.’

‘That is a point,’ said the Professor, ‘which certainly deserves consideration; very careful consideration. For instance–if you will excuse me for asking the question–does your experience lead you to regard your brother or your sister as the more reliable? I mean, which is the more truthful?’

‘That’s just the funny thing about it, sir,’ said Peter. ‘Up till now, I’d have said Lucy every time.’

‘And what do you think, my dear?’ said the Professor, turning to Susan.

‘Well,’ said Susan, ‘in general, I’d say the same as Peter, but this couldn’t be true–all this about the wood and the Faun.’

‘That is more than I know,’ said the Professor, ‘and a charge of lying against someone whom you have always found truthful is a very serious thing; a very serious thing indeed.’

‘We were afraid it mightn’t even be lying,’ said Susan; ‘we thought there might be something wrong with Lucy.’

‘Madness, you mean?’ said the Professor quite cooly. ‘Oh, you can make your minds easy about that. One has only to look at her and talk to her to see that she is not mad.’

‘But then,’ said Susan, and stopped. She had never dreamed that a grown-up would talk like the Professor and didn’t know what to think.

‘Logic!’ said the Professor half to himself. ‘Why don’t they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn’t tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.’

Susan looked at him very hard and was quite sure from the expression on his face that he was not making fun of them.

‘But how could it be true, sir?’ said Peter.

‘Why do you say that?’ asked the Professor.

‘Well, for one thing,’ said Peter, ‘if it was real why doesn’t everyone find this country every time they go to the wardrobe? I mean, there was nothing there when we looked; even Lucy didn’t pretend there was.’

‘What has that to do with it?’ said the Professor.

‘Well, sir, if things are real, they’re there all the time.’

‘Are they?’ said the Professor; and Peter did not know quite what to say.

One of the problems with excerpts is that the power of the broader story with all its characterization and depth cannot accompany a snippet. The dialogue continues, and of course Lucy’s tale turns out to be true. Shortly all the children are in Narnia.

If you haven’t read these books, I’d encourage you to fill that void in your happiness and read them for yourself.

Comments { 4 }

“A City Radiant as a Bride,” by Timothy Dudley-Smith

Revelation 21:9–11,

“Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, ‘Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.’ And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal.”

A City Radiant as a Bride
by Timothy Dudley Smith
Copyright 1987

A city radiant as a bride
and bright with gold and gem,
a crystal river clear and wide,
the new Jerusalem;
a city wrought of wealth untold,
her jeweled walls aflame
with green and amethyst and gold
and colors none can name.

A holy city, clear as glass,
where saints in glory dwell;
through gates of pearl her people pass
to fields of asphodel.
In robes of splendor, pure and white,
they walk the golden floor,
where God himself shall be their light
and night shall be no more.

A city ever new and fair,
the Lamb’s eternal bride;
no suffering or grief is there
and every tear is dried.
There Christ prepares for us a place,
from sin and death restored,
and we shall stand before his face,
the ransomed of the Lord.

Comments { 1 }

The Kingdom of God

What is the kingdom of God? The answer cannot be reduced to a word study of the term kingdom. That would be a helpful exercise, but the Bible describes the kingdom even when the word is not used.

Any kingdom will consist of a king, his realm, its citizens, and the law that regulates their lives. This is true of God’s kingdom as well. What follows is a short overview of the Bible’s presentation of God’s rule over God’s people in God’s place according to God’s law.

God’s Rule

Adam is not called a king, but God gives him dominion (Gen. 1:26–28). From the garden forward, God exercises His authority through human rulers, whom He calls to act as His vice-regents. Satan sought to usurp God’s throne, and Adam betrayed the Ruler of the world (3:1–7). God spoke judgment on the Serpent, however, and in the word of judgment came also a promise of redemption (v. 15).

This pattern seen in the garden was repeated once Israel entered the Land of Promise. Just as God had given Adam dominion, so Israel inherited the land, God’s authority being exercised by the Word He spoke to them. Adam rebelled. Israel and her kings followed in his footsteps. God spoke judgment through the prophets, and as Adam was exiled from God’s presence in Eden, Israel was exiled from the land. Here, too, though, promises of redemption permeated the words of judgment, the prophets pointing to a glorious latterday restoration.

After the exile, Israel was restored to the land. Though promises were partially realized, the people continued to wait for the desert to bloom. Then the long-time-coming Messiah, the King of Israel, Jesus, arrived.

Jesus exercised God’s authority in word and deed, commanding unclean spirits and elements, rolling back disease and death. In the plot twist of the eons, Jesus conquered by being killed, gave life by being put to death. Being judged, He brought promised judgment on the Serpent, overcoming the treachery of Adam and Israel’s kings, casting out the usurper and laying claim to God’s kingdom by passing through death to resurrection.

Christ the King then gave gifts to His church, appointing men as Apostles, prophets, and evangelists, and giving pastors and teachers to shepherd His people until His return (Eph. 4:8–11). The undershepherds of the High King mediate His rule through the ministry of the Word. He will return, exercise everlasting dominion, and wear many crowns (Dan. 7:14; Rev. 19:12).

God’s Place

First, Eden was God’s place; after our exile therefrom, God met with Abraham and his sons at particular places. He then met Israel at Sinai, the mountain of God, before leading them into the new Eden, the Land of Promise. At Sinai, God gave Israel the tabernacle, which was later replaced by the temple. Then Jesus came and replaced the temple: in Him God was present, and He became the place where forgiveness of sins was made possible. Jesus gave His followers the indwelling Spirit and authority to forgive and constrain sin, making the church the new temple. Jesus will return and cause the glory of God to cover the dry lands as the waters cover the seas, and then, in the new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem will be what the Holy of Holies was in the temple: the throne room of God and the Lamb.

God’s People

God speaks of the seed of the Serpent and the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15. In this context, He speaks the words cursed are youonly to the Serpent (Gen. 3:14). When these words are later spoken to Cain (Gen. 4:11), echoing over Canaan son of Ham (9:25), we see that those who continue in unrepentant opposition to the Lord and His people descend from their father the Devil (see also John 8:44; 1 John 3:8–15). By contrast, the seed of the woman are those who repent of their sin, believe the promises of God, embrace God’s authoritative Word, and keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus (Rev. 12:17).

God’s Law

When God made Adam His vice-regent, God’s Word regulated and empowered him, giving both permissions and prohibitions. We see this dynamic again in Israel, as her kings were to enforce God’s law, being subject to it themselves. Jesus came as the living Word. He was the embodiment of God’s teaching, and He fulfilled the law. God continues to exercise His authority through His Word in the current expression of His kingdom, the church. With the new covenant inaugurated, God’s law is written on our hearts (Jer. 31:33; 1 John 2:20–27), and when Jesus returns, “we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).

God’s kingdom consists of God’s rule over God’s people in God’s place. God has established His King, Jesus, and by His Spirit He gives life to His people through His Word. God’s people are now sojourners and exiles, making their way through the wilderness to God’s place — the Land of Promise, the city with foundations, the new Jerusalem, the new heaven and the new earth. The kingdom belongs to the Lord, and He will rule over His people in His place according to His Word.

—-

This post originally appeared in Ligonier’s Tabletalk magazine and can be found on their site here.

Bibliographic info: James M. Hamilton Jr., “Kingdom,” Tabletalk (vol. 35 no. 11 November, 2011), 20–21. [the subtitle "God's place" is at the top of p. 21].

Comments { 19 }

My Take on Dumbledore’s Orientation

Christianity.com has posted my thoughts on “What Rowling Said about Dumbledore.” Here’s the postscript:

I haven’t read Jerram Barrs’ book yet, but I just saw on Justin Taylor’s blog that Barrs has an appendix in his forthcoming Echoes of Eden entitled “The Outing of Dumbledore.” I’ve been thinking about what Rowling said about Dumbledore since it was first brought to my attention, and seeing that Barrs has an appendix on it spurred me to finish this post. I don’t know what Barrs will say, but this is my take on Rowling’s declaration that in her conception of Dumbledore he felt same-sex attractions.

The whole thing is here.

Comments { 4 }

Intended Allegory in the Song of Songs?

For a number of years now learned interpreters of Scripture have been telling us that the Song of Songs is (primarily) about human love. I put the word primarily in parentheses in that last sentence for a reason. I had grown so accustomed to the emphasis on human love in the Song that I had begun to assume that’s all modern commentators said about it. As I was recently pondering this, I went back and looked at what they actually say. They typically add a word like “primarily” or “mainly,” leaving the door open to a spiritual meaning of the Song. But then when they get into it, all they talk about is human love.

In this post I want to pose a question: is it possible that Solomon intended the Song to have an allegorical layer of meaning?

Usually when you suggest that the Song is about something more than human love, people roll their eyes and write you off as a prude.

I’m not a prude, okay?

I do think the Song is about human love, and I think human love is great. Really great! I love my wife, and I can’t get over God giving us something so surprising, so pleasing, so good as marriage. Everything that happens within the context of this comprehensive interpersonal union of one man and one woman being one flesh is better than any of the perversions people use to ruin it. So I’m on board with human love in the Song.

My question, though, is whether there’s more to the Song than merely human love, more that Solomon, whom I take to have written the Song (cf. Song 1:1), intended his audience to get from this piece of poetry. I’m not out to defend the history of interpretation by asking this question, but it is worth observing that the idea that the Song has a spiritual meaning has been, well, dominant across the ages. Is there exegetical evidence for it, though?

Let me note that by allegory I don’t mean something terribly complicated. Let’s stick with a simple definition from dictionary.com: “a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.” This seems to work for the way Paul uses allegory in Galatians 4:24.

So here’s the simple proposal this post is inviting you to consider: is it possible that Solomon intended to represent the spiritual relationship between God and his people through a poetic depiction of the human relationship between the King and the Bride in the Song of Songs?

What could have prompted Solomon to think of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel as being analogous to human marriage?

Well, in Exodus 34:14–16 Israel is already being warned not to “whore after their gods.” By describing idolatry with the language of prostitution and sexual immorality, Moses is talking about the covenant between Yahweh and Israel as though it is a marriage. So this way of thinking about God’s relationship with his people is well established prior to the time of Solomon, and it continues after Solomon, not least with Hosea, where when Hosea marries Gomer, Hosea plays the part of Yahweh, Gomer the part of Israel.

So I think we can be confident that biblical authors prior to and after Solomon were thinking about a spiritual meaning of marriage, recognizing an analogy between human marriage and God’s covenant with Israel. Is there more specific evidence?

Psalm 45 is perhaps the closest analogy to the Song of Songs in the Old Testament, being a wedding song for Israel’s king. The Psalm begins with a celebration of the king in Psalm 45:1–9, then concludes with an address to the princess marrying the king in 45:10–17. As the psalmist extols the greatness of the king, he says in Psalm 45:6, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,” showing—at least—a very tight connection between Yahweh and the king who represents him. With a statement like this in Psalm 45, and with other texts in the OT communicating a very close connection between Israel’s God and Israel’s king (e.g., Num 23:21; Isa 9:6; Jer 23:6; Hos 3:5; Mic 2:13; 5:4; Zech 12:8; 13:7) it would seem natural—not forced or fanciful—to see an analogy between the King and his Bride and Yahweh and Israel in the Song of Songs.

What about evidence that later OT authors might have read the Song this way? Is there anything that points in that direction? The King in the Song is regularly called the Bride’s “beloved.” This particular Hebrew word means different things in different contexts. In some contexts it means “uncle.” It is not often used outside the Song of Songs the way Solomon uses it in the Song. In fact, the only place outside the Song of Songs where the word is used with the same meaning it has in the Song is Isaiah 5:1, where Isaiah writes, “Let me sing for my beloved my love song concerning his vineyard.” What follows in Isaiah 5 makes it clear that Isaiah is referring to Yahweh as his beloved. Given the fact that the only Scripture in which the word is used this way prior to Isaiah is the Song of Songs, it would seem at least possible that Isaiah’s thinking about the Lord has been influenced by the Song, with the result that Isaiah refers to the Lord the way the King is referenced in the Song. A related form, though not exactly the same Hebrew word, is used in a similar way, with reference to the relationship between Yahweh and Israel, in Jeremiah 11:15, Ezekiel 16:8, Psalm 60:5 (MT 60:7)/108:6 (MT 108:7), and 127:2.

There is more that could be said. For instance, the king’s procession to the wedding in Song 3:6–11 seems to have been crafted to recall Israel being led out to Sinai for the wedding between herself and Yahweh, who would dwell with her in the tabernacle and lead her by the pillar of fire and cloud. But the strongest argument for this way of thinking about the Song, it seems to me, comes from Paul telling the Ephesians what marriage is ultimately about in Ephesians 5:32, “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”

Yahweh married Israel at Sinai. When she broke the covenant by whoring after other gods, she was eventually exiled, with the prophets promising a renewal of the broken marriage (see esp. Hos 2:14–23), a new covenant (Jer 31:31–34). Jesus came calling himself the Bridegroom (Matt 9:15), being recognized as such by the Baptist (John 3:29), and laying down his life for his bride (Eph 5:25) that she might be clothed in white linen for the marriage feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:7–8).

The Song of Songs is a poetic summary and interpretation of the Bible’s big story: the descendant of David—king of Israel about whom the promises of 2 Samuel 7 were made (promises resonant with the blessing of Abraham from Genesis 12:1–3, promises that will be realized through the one whose descent can be traced all the way back to Adam, who can thus be identified as the promised seed of the woman from Genesis 3:15)—renews an eden-like intimacy between himself and his Bride, reversing the affects of the fall (cf. Gen 3:16 and Song 7:10). All this is fulfilled in Christ Jesus, son of David, Yahweh incarnate, the one greater than Solomon (Matt 12:42), who initiated the new covenant between himself and his bride, the church, and who will return for the grand consummation when the Bride herself, the new Jerusalem, will descend from heaven having the glory of God (Rev 21:9–11).

—-

This post originally appeared at Christianity.com.

Comments { 17 }

Daniel

Son of Man and floating hand,
Mysteries galore.
A statue gold, a dream untold,
Unfold what is in store.

Furnace of fire and lion pit,
Nations there did rage.
The letters on the wall were writ,
And God his people saved.

Antichrist is on the way,
Many now have come,
Those who know their God will stay,
If killed still will not run.

For God his Kingdom will raise up,
And all the dead will rise.
These will suffer, those will shine,
Like stars will be the wise.

Comments { 9 }

What Flag Do Your Words Wave?

The way that we view the world is reflected in the words that we use to talk about it. At Ray Van Neste’s recommendation I’m beginning to read The Language of Canaan and the Grammar of Feminism by Vernard Eller, a short little book of 56 pages. He quotes Karl Barth on the important point that the words we use reflect our thought structures:

It was, I think, Karl Barth who once said something to the effect that Christians have an obligation to become competent in the “language of Canaan” (i.e., biblical ways of thinking and speaking) rather than simply demanding that everything be translated into our language (i.e., contemporary forms of thought).

This is exactly why I am an inveterate advocate of literal Bible translation–and I refuse to stop using the word “literal” because some people sniff at it.

The point is that if we are trying to learn Biblical Theology, we are trying to access the thoughts of the biblical authors, and for that to happen we need the words they used. I know, I know: you have to make adjustments moving from one language to another, but where possible–and it is usually possible–we should maintain the actual words they used rather than rephrasing things for them. If the biblical author has used the phrase “the good hand of God,” let’s keep that rather than changing it to “the gracious hand,” or “the gracious power.” Hebrew has words for gracious and power and those words are not what the biblical author chose in this case. Are we translating? Or are we re-phrasing because we can improve on what the biblical author wrote?

Among other things, maintaining the words as far as possible helps us see how inter-connected the Bible is, as it preserves biblical intertextuality.

Eller also speaks to the way that the words we use wave certain flags:

although the feminist grammar surely is not deliberately antirhetorical, it is most deliberately political. Its linguistic innovations (such as “chairperson,” “humankind,” “God gives us God’s grace,” “he or she”) are code symbols, each a little red flag bearing the letters FA (Feminist Approved). And the game–the language game–is to score points by the amount of writing that can be labeled FA. “Look: Eller has conceded! Or, if not that, at least an editor has dragged him in. Either way, you can chalk up another one for us.”

The use of our language is not a neutral matter, nor is the translation of the Bible. Bible translators may not be consciously capitulating to the feminist agenda, but when they avoid words like “father” and choose words like “ancestor” or “family leader” instead, points are being scored.

Another reason to learn the biblical languages, and persist in them.

Comments { 9 }

Go to the Ant

Proverbs 6:6, “Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise.”

Some time back we watched some video with the kids, probably a BBC thing on the world or something of the sort, and I noted down some stats on what ants accomplish–these were ants in Africa, I think, but I don’t remember their exact location or what kind of ants they were. Their accomplishments are impressive:

  • The ant “megalopolis” was built of the equivalent of 10 tons of cement.
  • The ant megalopolis covered 50 square meters.
  • Forty tons of soil was moved in the construction project.
  • Each load carried by an ant weighed 4 times as much as the worker carrying the load.

UPDATE: Patrick Schreiner has the video:

Well spoken, Solomon.

Comments { 12 }

A Journey through Revelation in Tomball, TX

If you are in the Tomball, Spring, The Woodlands, Magnolia, or Houston area, I join with Pastor Jeff Medders to invite you to Redeemer Church’s first Bible Conference: A Journey through Revelation.

Join us for a journey through one of the most difficult books in the Bible, the book of Revelation.

Four sessions, question and answers, and Christ-centered worship.

SCHEDULE – March 22-23

  • FRIDAY, 22nd, 6:30pm-8:30pm, 2 Sessions, Q&A.
  • SATURDAY, 23rd, 6:30pm-8:30pm, 2 Sessions, Q&A.

*Child Care is provided.

Register here.

Comments { 5 }

How I Mark My Bible

As I read the Bible, I try to make note of repeated words, resumed themes, quotations of earlier passages, and other key ideas. I don’t want simply to see them, however, and move on. I want to mark them so that when I later have a vague recollection of something I read a while ago I can go back and find it.

So as I read the Bible, I use a mechanical pencil, a set of colored pens, colored pencils, and occasionally a highlighter to note things. As I’ve done this over the years, I’ve developed a color code for key ideas that breaks down like this:

Orange = references to God’s glory or name

Green = references to earlier Scripture, whether quotations or otherwise

Purple = references to royalty/kingship/the coming Messiah

Red = anything notable, but particularly the actions the Lord himself does

Blue = references to faith, believing, piety, etc.

Pink = knowing or fearing God/the Lord

Yellow (colored pencil) = anything notable, repeated words in the passage, etc.

Brown (colored pencil) = references to times or dates

Mechanical Pencil = notes in the margin, underlines, connecting lines, etc.

Those are the constants. Some colors vary from book to book, but these are pretty standard throughout. For instance, I recently re-read Proverbs all at one sitting with the intention of noting everything the book says about raising children. I marked all those references with a lime green color, and all the references to the “path” of the righteous or to the “ways” of a man with an aqua green color. And since Proverbs has a few unique “headings” (1:1; 10:1; 22:17; 24:23; 25:1; 30:1; 31:1) I used a highlighter to mark those. Bible pages tend to be thin, so I try to keep a highlighter that is almost used up to try to cut down on the bleed-through affect.

So here’s a shot of a passage before I studied it and marked it up. I was preaching through Jeremiah, and the marked passage in the column on the far left ends at Jeremiah 25:14, which was where my last sermon on Jeremiah ended. I took this photo right before I began to study Jeremiah 25:15–38, which was the next sermon in the series on Jeremiah. This passage begins at the bottom of the far left column and continues through the two columns in the middle. I had already underlined Jeremiah 26:1 in brown colored pencil because it has a statement about when Jeremiah got this word, and the green colored pencil is there because of the reference to the way the word came from the Lord.

As I worked through the passage, I underlined all the places where Jeremiah has something like “Thus says the Lord” in green colored pencil (see 25:15, 27, 29, 31, 32).

Then as I read and re-read the passage, I noticed that in both 25:16 and 27 Jeremiah is told to command the nations to “drink . . . because of the sword that I [Yahweh] am sending among you,” so I underlined the matching phrases in the two verses with an aqua green colored pencil.

Cities and nations are listed out in Jeremiah 25:18–26, with some comments on each. So I underlined each city or nation mentioned in yellow colored pencil.

Jerusalem was to be a city that reflected Yahweh’s glory, from which his glory radiated outward, so I underlined the reference in Jeremiah 25:29 to “the city that is called by my name” in orange pen.

In Jeremiah 25:30 the Lord twice roars like a lion, and I’ve circled those in mechanical pencil, drawing a line from that verse to 25:38, where similar imagery is used, and noting that Yahweh also roars like a lion in Amos 1:2, Joel 3:16, and Hosea 5:14.

I have also noted the next to Jeremiah 25:33 places where Jeremiah says similar things at 16:4 and 8:2.

Then in Jeremiah 25:34–36 there are several references to the “shepherds” who are the “lords of the flock,” and these are underlined in jade green colored pencil. The two calls for these wicked leaders of Israel to “wail” are underlined with a mechanical pencil, with a line connecting them. Here’s a photo of the page I’ve been describing:

I’ve marked up several copies of the Bible this way, and when I teach I want to have a copy of the Bible in front of me that has everything that I will have a faint memory of clearly marked so that I can find it (relatively) quickly when I’m asked a question, and I know I read something about that around Luke 12. I flip to Luke 12, and I can usually find what it was I had in mind because I usually remember, however faintly, what I’ve marked.

If I want an uninfluenced, fresh reading of the text, I can read a Bible that I haven’t marked up. But if I want to layer reading upon reading and go deeper this time than last, it helps me to read a copy that will have my previous study notes in it.

I recommend reading large chunks of Bible all at one sitting, whole books if possible, thoroughly marking them up as you go. Doing this book after book helps us see the interconnectedness of individual books and the thick intertextuality of each book of the Bible with all the others. Obviously you don’t have to do it exactly the way I do, but perhaps my method will spur your own thinking and you can adapt it to suit your own study.

Mark well what you read, and may the Word of Christ dwell in you richly (Col 3:16).

—-

This post originally appeared at Christianity.com.

Comments { 6 }

God’s Indwelling Presence: Five Sermons on the Spirit

Were old covenant believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit? What does the Old Testament say about where God took up residence? What does the New Testament say about the issue? If believing members of the old covenant remnant were not indwelt by the Spirit, how did they believe and remain faithful? What about those whom the Old Testament describes as having the Spirit in or on them?

And then there’s the question of the Old Testament’s promise of a new experience of the Holy Spirit – how does that fit in the big storyline of the Bible?

Can we take a close look at what the gospel of John says about these issues?

What about the Spirit in Acts?

Can I get some help from Romans 8 on how to overcome the flesh by setting my mind on the Spirit?

If you’ve asked these questions, you might be interested in my book God’s Indwelling Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments. I don’t address every one of these questions in that book, but those questions are the ones that drive the five sermons on the Spirit that I preached at the Winter Bible Conference at Grace Church of Tallahassee January 25–27, 2013. On that page, by the way, there are also links to the talks Michael Haykin gave on Scripture and the ones Bruce Ware gave on Beholding the Glory.

Here are the titles of the sessions I did:

Session 1 – The Holy Spirit and Old Covenant Believers
Session 2 – The Promise of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
Session 3 – The Holy Spirit in John
Session 4 – The Holy Spirit in Acts
Session 5 – The Holy Spirit in Romans
Questions & Answers Session

Audio and video for each session available on the Grace Church of Tallahassee site.

Comments { 9 }

We Love Homeschooling

I am so thankful that our kids are enrolled in Hamilton Classical Academy, and here’s just one reason. The other day their history book from Veritas Press (Pages of History by Bruce Etter and Alexia Detweiler) introduced this acorn to oak-tree concept of the growth of the promises in the OT from the acorn of Genesis 3:15 to the oak-tree of fulfillment in Christ. After she read the section to them, my sweet wife encouraged the kids to draw what they had learned, and here’s our oldest son’s reproduction of the chart from the book.

photo-7

Comments { 5 }

A Revelation Symposium in Reno

Banner-01Sierra Bible Church in Reno, NV is hosting a Revelation Symposium on Saturday, February 23, 2013. I’m looking forward to interacting with Sam Waldron and Gary DeMar. Details here.

Then Lord willing, Sunday, February 24, 2013, it will be my privilege to preach the word at Sierra Bible. If you’re in the area, I’d love to see you there.

If you’re not in the area, you can get my take on the book of Revelation here.

Comments { 2 }

David Instone-Brewer on Electronic Resources for OT Studies

David Instone-Brewer is always informative on electronic resources, and he’s just come out with his latest update focusing on OT Studies.

Comments { 1 }

Winter Bible Conference, Grace Church Tallahassee

Grace Church of Tallahassee, Florida is hosting a Winter Bible Conference January 25–27, 2013. I’ll be speaking on the Holy Spirit. Here are the session topics and times:

Friday, January 25, 7pm, The Holy Spirit and Old Covenant Believers
Saturday, January 26, 9am, The Promise of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
Saturday, January 26, 10:45am, The Holy Spirit in John
Sunday, January 27, 9:45am, They Holy Spirit in Acts
Sunday, January 27, 10:45am, The Holy Spirit in Romans

If you’re in the area, I would love to see you there. If you’re not in the area, you can get my take on these topics here.

Comments { 5 }

New Year’s Resolutions

1) Resolved: in stray and sundry moments when I find myself waiting in line or sitting in traffic, to meditate on the Scripture I know and seek to apply it to life rather than fretting about the way I could be using that time to study more Scripture.

2) Resolved: to obey Deuteronomy 6 and repeat the words of the Bible to my children when we rise up and lie down, when we sit in the house and walk by the way, and to talk with them about the truths of holy Writ.

3) Resolved: in view of the fact that marriage is a mini-drama of the gospel, to love my wife as Christ has loved the church, as this is the epic adventure of my life.

—-

I wrote these for Towers for New Year’s Day 2012 and now post them here.

Comments { 0 }

Through the Prince Not Proud

The one who gave life, entered into life.
The one who spoke the curse of death took the curse of death.
The one who defines good and evil, who is nothing but good, took evil on himself.
The holy one gave himself for the unholy,
The righteous for the unrighteous,
The undying for the dead.

The Son of God became a son of man
So the sons of men could become sons of God.

The one who made everything was unmade so that we might be remade.
The Creator entered the creation to be killed by creatures so he could roll back death and bring about the new creation.

Death could not hold him.
Sin could not stain him.
Hell will not stand against him.
You will not outrun him.

Jesus will reign!

God has answered Satan’s shout of triumph with the baby’s cry.

God has brought proud Satan low

through the prince not proud
born on the night not silent
in the stable not clean
to the heir not honored
with majesty not recognized
by those who will not repent
but beheld by those who are naught in the eyes of the world.

The babe has been born
The dragon defeated
Salvation accomplished
Good news has come
Will you believe it?

The word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. We have seen his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).

Comments { 10 }

What Jesus Is

The baby in the manger is the lynchpin of the fulfillment of God’s promises.
The whole Bible hangs on that baby born of Mary.
God’s faithfulness depends on that boy’s life.
God’s faithfulness is shown in that man’s death.
God’s faithfulness is sealed in his resurrection.

Jesus is everything to us.

Comments { 2 }