Biblical Criticism and Confessionalism

In light of recent discussions on the blogsophere, I have a number of questions for leading figures in the Reformed Tradition concerning how they answer historical-critical questions in light of their confessional committments (let me add that these are genuine questions, I honestly want to know how Reformed Theologians address these issues, and I imagine that many others what to know as well).

1. What is the "Reformed Orthodox" view of using extra-biblical sources in exegesis? What led you to this answer and what (if anything) makes your answer prescriptive?

2. Why is Genesis 1-3 similar to the Enuma Elish? On what do you base your answer?

3. Did the Apostle Paul believe in the inerrancy of the autographa? Why are Paul's citation of Scripture often different from the wording and meaning in the original Hebrew Bible and even the Septuagint (to give one example: Isa. 59.20 cited in Rom. 11.26-27)?

4. Did the historical person of Enoch prophesy about the coming of the Lord (Jude 14-15)? Why does Jude cite this extra-canonical source (an Enochic tradition?), without differentiating it from the Hebrew Scriptures that he also quotes in his short epistle?

Moreover, what I want to know is:

- What is the evidence and reasoning behind your answer?
- How do you differ from Enns' answer?
- What are the theological implications of your answer (if any)?

Let me tag a number of eminent Reformed thinkers and scholars with these question (in other words, I would like you to hear their answer to these questions). Justin Taylor - Reformed Baptist, prolific blogger, and publishing editor at Crossway. Scott Clark - Historical Theology Professor at Westminster West. And I would especially love to hear from the good folk at Reformation21. Others can chime in on the comments section.

Scripture and Confession

Chris Terry Nelson of Disruptive Grace, provides a good 10 point summary from Edmund Schlink's Theology of the Lutheran Confessions about the relationship between Scripture and Confession. My favourites were # 5 and # 9:

"(5) Dogmatics is bound by the Confessions as exposition of Scripture. This means again, obligation to Holy Scripture as the sole norm - obligation not so much to a specific exegesis as rather to Scripture itself. Not what men say about Scripture constitutes the sole norm, but what Scripture says to men. A Confession has no binding force apart from the fact that it correctly expounds Scripture. If we were bound to the Confessions simply because they claim to see the propriety of this claim on the basis of Scripture, the Confession would be, like the tradition of the Roman church, a second norm for dogmatics alongside Scripture. Doctrine cannot be bound to the Confessions in the sense of a fides implicita, that is, independent of a clear exegetical understanding of their scripturalness. The truth and binding force of a Confession does not rest simply on its claim - no matter how much that claim may be supported by respected church fathers at various times - but in its actual agreement with Scripture which ever anew discloses itself to exegetical study."

"(9) From all this it follows that we must carefully distinguish between a theology of the Lutheran Confessions and a text in dogmatics. If by a theology of the Lutheran Confessions we mean a faithful preproduction of their content in systematic order, this endeavor is not dogmatics. Again, dogmatics is not simply a repetition or repristination of the Confessions. Two facts must be considered: (a) The Confessions are the model of all church doctrine, including all dogmatic endeavor, which teachers of the church undertake and the results of which they present orally and in writing. As the voice of the church Confessions have more authority than the voice of an individual. (b) On the other hand, the norm for dogmatics is not the Confession, but solely the Holy Scriptures. Dogmatics, like the Confession, must teach the summary of Scripture. The possibility must be conceded from the start that dogmatics may, in the process of exegesis, question some of the confession formulations. Unlike a theology of the Confessions, dogmatics must, furthermore, review the consensus of the Confessions with the ancient church as well as the consensus of the Reformation age, develop them further, even call them into question."

In other words, the confessions of the church are not infallible, and Scripture always, always, always trumps the confessions!

HT: Ben Myers

Mark Nanos on the “weak” in 1 Corinthians 8—11, Part One

Mark Nanos, as I have come to expect, has offered interpreters of Paul an alternative reading of a familiar text. What I especially appreciate about Mark’s work, is that whether in the end I agree with this conclusions, I am always forced to think differently about a Pauline text. Mark looks at well-trodden passages in Paul from new vistas and this is refreshing. No different is the case with this recently updated and unpublished paper titled “The Polytheist Identity of the ‘Weak”, And Paul’s Strategy to ‘Gain’ Them: A New Reading of 1 Corinthians 8:1—11:1”.

.

I planned to write a brief review consisting of one post, but alas I again find I just can’t be brief—or better his paper deserves better than brief—so I will break this review up among a few posts.
.
Mark’s thesis is that the “weak", whom he prefers to label "impaired" (more on this later), throughout 1 Cor 8—11 are not what the traditional and prevailing interpretation asserts, namely Christ believers who are prone to idolatry because of their cultural baggage. Through 33 pages of argumentation Mark contends that the group in view is instead non-believing idolatrous Corinthians. And since no moniker is better, he labels them “polytheists”, by which he means “non-Christ-believing-non-Jews” (1).
.
Mark begins with a largely even-handed review of traditional interpretations of the referent of Paul’s term “weak”, which differ slightly in detail, but agree on the Christ-believing identity of the group. He lists several reasons why he thinks the traditional interpretation has had such convincing force. Among the reasons are (1) Paul’s reference to this group as “brothers/sisters”, (2) Paul’s assertion that to sin against them is to sin against Christ, and (3) Paul’s assumption that the weak brothers and sisters are vulnerable to influence by the knowledgeable. What’s more, Mark suggests prevailing meta-assumptions about Paul also function to support the traditional reading not least the prevailing view of Paul as one who no longer is a Torah-observant Jew since converting to Christ faith.

.

While I will say more about these things later, I would quibble with the way he paints with broad strokes the assumptions of the traditional interpretation at least on one of the points. He seems to assume that all who hold the traditional view presume that the weak are “not mature enough in their Christ-faith to think like the knowledgeable ones” (9, emphasis added). This negatively slanted characterization of Paul’s presentation of the weak may characterize many if not most of the perspectives in the traditional camp, but it certainly is not shared by all.

.

A critical eye toward the weak, at least in my view (although I am yet to admit that I fit as a traditionalist in this discussion), could not be farther from the context of 1 Cor 8-11 since all criticism is aimed squarely at those with the so-called knowledge, the presumed strong. Thus, whatever might be thought of the weak, Paul gives no reason to think that he wishes them to mature beyond their current mindset. In fact, Paul seems to assume that such a phenomenon is simply a fact of reality of which the knowledgeable must accommodate.

The Enns of Biblical Studies in Reformed Circles

By now news that Peter Enns has been suspended from his position as Associate Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary as of 23 May 2008 is well and truly on the blogsosphere. Like Dave Miller I was at the Institute for Biblical Research in Philadelphia in 2005 when Baker handed out free copies of his book. And it is a good book, esp. for anyone wrestling with biblical criticism and Christian faith (though like all books on Scripture it is not without its shortcomings, see reviews listed here and here). But if Bart Ehrman had read a book like this before he went to Princeton then he might not have apostacized (but that is admittedly a conjecture).

My biggest question right now is what does the happenings at WTS mean for biblical scholars working at confessional institutions in the USA? The problem is the link between historical study of the Scriptures and the theological intepretation of the Scriptures - both of which should be valued and esteemed! Schreiner (see the post below) writes that: "[S]ystematic theology looks at the canon as a whole from an atemporal perspective". That is fine in and of itself, but there are some theologians who have a system that simply cannot cope with the historical and cultural contingency of the origin and development of the Christian Bible. For them, to use ancient near eastern writings, Greco-Roman texts, or second temple literature to assist in biblical interpretation is supremely offensive. The two issues here are: (1) Do theologians take the historical content and context of the Bible seriously? And (2) what are the boundaries of Reformed confessionalism? That said, I am unsure about some of Enns' conclusions in his book esp. his "incarnational model" in light of criticisms by Andrew McGowan and John Webster. But Enns is asking the right questions and coming up with some cogent answers that I (personally) think are consistent with Reformed Orthodoxy. But there is certainly one passage in the book that must change with a second edition:

"Also influential has been my own theological tradition, represented by my colleagues at Westminster Theological Seminary, past and present, and the wider tradition of which that institution is a part. This is not to imply that I speak for that institution or tradition. Nevertheless, I am thankful for being part of such a solidly faithful group that does not shy away from some difficult yet basic questions and with whom I am able to have frank and open discussions. This does not happen at every institution, and I do not take that privilege for granted....I believe with all my heart that honesty with oneself is a central component to spiritual growth. God honors our honest questions. He is not surprised by them, nor is he ashamed to be our God when we pose them. He is our God, not because of the questions we ask (or refrain from asking), but because he has united us to the risen Christ. And being a part of God's family is ultimately a gift to us, not something to be obtained by us. God has freed us in Christ and made us his children. And, as all children do, we ask a lot of questions" (p. 9).

New Testament Theology and Canon

Should a New Testament Theology be restricted to the New Testament canon or should it encompass other literature like the Apostolic Fathers? Should we opt for a 'Theology of Early Christianity' instead of a 'Theology of the New Testament'? F.C. Baur knew of this issue but in his own 'New Testament Theology' he restricted himself to the canon. Even William Wrede was quite conservative and only going beyond the canon by including the epistles of Ignatius as an appendix to a theology of the Johannine Literature.

I concur with many scholars (Weiss, Biblical Theology, 2 n. 1; C.F. Schmid, Biblical Theology of the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882]: 8-9; Schlatter, ‘New Testament and Dogmatics’, 145-49; Leon Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament [2 vols.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982]: 2.271-72; Morgan ‘Introduction’, 19, 64-67; Marshall, New Testament Theology, 18-19) that an exclusive focus on the New Testament is reasonable given that it is, generally speaking, our earliest Christian literature and among the most influential too in the history of reception. Wrede contests the priority of these writings and also objects on the grounds that ‘anyone who accepts without question the idea of the canon places himself under the authority of the bishops and theologians of those centuries’ (Wrede, ‘Task and Method’, 71). But there is no problem if the New Testament and second century literature occasionally overlap since disputed areas of overlap, like border disputes in Kashmir, can still retain fixed boundaries (Marshall, New Testament Theology, 19; see also Dunn, ‘New Testament Theologizing’, 243) and Wrede’s own delineation between the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists is not convincing and contains overlaps as well. Also we only receive the New Testament and its history of interpretation from these bishops and theologians and we should do the courtesy of listening to them rather than disregard them as we would a Fed-Ex delivery boy after handing over a package. The bishops did not create or impose the canon, but ratified the emerging consensus and the theological convergences that were happening already. Thus, the ‘subsequent experience’ of the canon might be more illuminating than what Wrede acknowledges. At the same time the bishops and councils did not merely gather up together the ‘inspired’ writings and those that were ratified by the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit as there was a dialogical process underway about what should be the universally recognized register of sacred books. While the documents that formed the canon were thought to be inspired, inspiration was not limited to these writings as several patristic authors could refer to non-canonical writings as inspired or as Scripture as well (see Allert, High View of Scripture, 58-65, 177-88; pace Thielman, Theology, 28-29). Furthermore, as John Poirier (‘The Canonical Approach and the Idea of “Scripture”,’ ExpT 116 [2005]: 367) puts it: ‘Although the apostles were inspired in the performance of their office, it is not as inspired writings per se but as witnesses to the kergymatic narrative that the New Testament writings were considered authoritative for the early Church’. Consider also Jens Schröter: ‘The canonical status of the New Testament scriptures cannot be secured by appealing to their inspiration. This is rather circular, since the special status of these documents is already presupposed, and it is exclusively out of the context of the formation of the canon that it was received. Alternatively, a substantive theology of the New Testament should take it account the development of the historical documents of the early Christian canonical writings of the Christian church’ (‘Die Bedeutung des Kanons für eine Theologie des Neuen Testaments,’ in Aufgabe und Durchführung einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments, eds. Cilliers Breytenback and Jörg Frey [WUNT 205; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2007]: 157 [my own trans.]). In my view, an exclusive focus on the canon derives not from inspiration but from its ontological status as the historical testimony of the believing communities to the apostolic kerygma.

This is drawn from a footnote in a forthcoming lecture that I'm giving in July.

Schreiner on New Testament Theology

Adam Cheung interviews Tom Schreiner about his forthcoming volume New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. A few things come to mind:

• In light of several things (including influences diverse as Wrede, Ladd, Marshall, Thielman, and Carson), I have recently come out in favour of the corpus-by-corpus approach as opposed to the thematic approach when it comes to doing New Testament Theology. Although I recognize that the thematic approach (e.g. Guthrie, Caird, Schreiner) provides a better synthesizing element than does the corpus-by-corpus approach, I take the latter to be superior in terms of analysis of the actual texts themselves.
• In the interview, Schreiner offers an excellent description of the differentation between systematic and biblical theology.
• This volume looks like it will be a synthesis of Piperesque and Laddian view points when it comes to the framework of a New Testament Theology, which is probably a good combination.

Torah as Social Boundary Marker

Dunn and Wright have argued that "works of the law" means the mosaic law in general but also connotes the specific commandments of sabbath keeping, food laws, and circumcision as emblems of Israel's election and requiring separation from the nations. I tend to think that "works of the law" means the "works which the law requires" but that point should not eviscerate the fact that doing the works of the law meant engaging in a form of law keeping that required separation from non-Jews and it was an expression of loyalty to one's ethnic identity. Committment to the law was not merely a theological conviction but a social stance as well. In other words, doing the "works of the law" meant keeping the Jewish way of life.

The following passage from Tacitus, Hist. 5.5 illustrates very clearly the social stimga attached to keeping the Torah:

"This worship, however introduced, is upheld by its antiquity; all their other customs, which are at once perverse and disgusting, owe their strength to their very badness. The most degraded out of other races, scorning their national beliefs, brought to them their contributions and presents. This augmented the wealth of the Jews, as also did the fact, that among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. They sit apart at meals, they sleep apart, and though, as a nation, they are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful. Circumcision was adopted by them as a mark of difference from other men. Those who come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson first instilled into them, to despise all gods, to disown their country, and set at nought parents, children, and brethren. Still they provide for the increase of their numbers. It is a crime among them to kill any newly-born infant. They hold that the souls of all who perish in battle or by the hands of the executioner are immortal. Hence a passion for propagating their race and a contempt for death. They are wont to bury rather than to burn their dead, following in this the Egyptian cus tom; they bestow the same care on the dead, and they hold the same belief about the lower world. Quite different is their faith about things divine. The Egyptians worship many animals and images of monstrous form; the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence. They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials. They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay. They therefore do not allow any images to stand in their cities, much less in their temples. This flattery is not paid to their kings, nor this honour to our Emperors. From the fact, however, that their priests used to chant to the music of flutes and cymbals, and to wear garlands of ivy, and that a golden vine was found in the temple, some have thought that they worshipped father Liber, the conqueror of the East, though their institutions do not by any means harmonize with the theory; for Liber established a festive and cheerful worship, while the Jewish religion is tasteless and mean."

Imperial Cult in China

Over at the RNS site I came across this quote:

“The Communist Party is like the parent to the Tibetan people, and it is always considerate about what the children need. The Central Party Committee is the real Buddha for Tibetans.”

-- Zhang Qingli, the China-appointed Communist Party chief in Tibet, where Chinese police have suppressed protests by Tibetan monks and lay people clamoring for autonomy. Zhang's remarks, quoted by The Associated Press this month, were uttered last year.

If you change "Buddha" to "Jesus", you've got a pretty good recipe for institutionalized idolatry at the national level. You should worship the Politburo, not Jesus! This is probably the closest thing we have in our day to worship of the state as an alternative to worship of a deity.

McKnight on Thiselton

In an article on Performing Orthodoxy over at CT, Scot McKnight gives a glowing review of Anthony Thilselton's new book The Hermeneutics of Doctrine. It all reminds me of a quote from Kierkegaard: "As you have lived, so have you believed"!

Biography of D.A. Carson

Andreas Kostenberger has posted a biographical sketch of D.A. Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School which is a very good read. I admire the productivity and sheer breadth of Carson's work in the New Testament as well as his pastoral focus too. (I often lay awake at night in fear that I'll be mentioned in the third edition of Exegetical Fallacies). He is also one of the few scholars who is just as good in person as he is in print which I've learnt from Carson's almost yearly visits to Australia. Best of all Carson is a good example of another Baptist Anglophile! Recently, D.A. Carson has written a biography of his father entitled: Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor: The Life and Reflections of Tom Carson which will be illuminating of Carson's own spiritual journey too no doubt.

HT: Justin Taylor.

Separation of the Agape and the Eucharist

Darrell Pursiful has a follow-up post to why the eucharist was separated from the agape meal. Great stuff, do read it!

Honour and Shame

I'm currently rewriting my notes for a course that I teach on Luke-Acts. Here's what I have to say about "honour" and "shame" in the New Testament:

The values of ‘honour’ and ‘shame’ had pivotal importance for both Roman and Jewish societies. First century people in the Mediterranean were told from childhood to seek honour and avoid disgrace. Social interaction, religious life, and group loyalties were affected in some way by the values of honour and shame. Honour is the claim to a certain status and the acknowledgement of that status by group consensus. Honour can be either ascribed (by gender, rank, noble birth, etc) or acquired through social advancement in public accomplishments, by excelling over others, and by embodying certain virtues like piety, fidelity, and courage. Honour was a limited commodity in ancient societies and it was attained through the social competition of challenge and response. The Greek philosopher Aristotle listed two motives for action: honour and pleasure (Nic. Eth. 3.1.11 [1110b.11-12]). One of the earliest Latin handbooks on rhetoric stated that a course of action must be honorable, regardless of however safe or unsafe it might be (Rhetorica ad Herennium 3.5.8-9). Quintilian, a teacher of rhetoric in the first century AD claimed that honour was the main factor in the art of persuasion (Institutes 3.7.28, 3.8.1). According to Joshua ben Sirach honour is an important aspect of the life of an obedient Jew. He affirms the fifth commandment to honour one’s father and mother and emphasizes the rewards of such behaviour (Sir. 3.3-8), honour is something that God confers (Sir. 10.5), those who fear the Lord are worthy of honour and those who do not fear him receive dishonour (Sir. 10.19), and someone who is the leader of a family are worthy of honour, but someone who fears God receive honour in God’s eyes (Sir. 10.20). Sirach also exhorts readers to, ‘Excel in all that you do; bring no stain upon your honor’ (Sir. 32.23). Shame is, by contrast, the public recognition of a lack of honour or else a failure to act honourably. Certain actions and professions can be regarded as shameful such as adultery and prostitution. For some persons, usually of a subservient position in society or a household, honour was to be found in one’s sense of shame and embarrassment. For instance, in Sirach we read: ‘A shameless woman constantly acts disgracefully, but a modest daughter will even be embarrassed before her husband. A headstrong wife is regarded as a dog, but one who has a sense of shame will fear the Lord’ (Sir. 26.24-25). A woman then is most honourable if she has a strong sensitivity to bringing shame on herself or her family. Honour and shame were values that created social adhesion, formed collective identity, enforced group boundaries, and fostered a set of standards of conduct. If a voluntary association, household, or individual was to pursue honour and avoid shame, then they would have to adhere to what constitutes honourable behaviour in the eyes of the wider pagan society. But Jews and Christians often failed to do this since they did not undertake their civic responsibility to worship the emperor (= impious and disloyal) and they engaged in practices that appeared socially inappropriate like circumcision and greeting each other with a ‘holy kiss’ (= barbarous, immoral). Associations and groups that failed to act honourably ran the risk of derision, insult, abuse, reproach, and harassment from society (e.g. Heb. 10.32-34; 1 Pet. 2.11-12; 4.1-4) and in some extreme occasions even provoke an extreme response like expulsion from a society or city (John 9.22; 12.42; 16.2; Acts 5.40-42; 18.2; Rev. 2.9), confiscation of property (Tob. 1.20; 3 Macc. 7.21; Heb. 10.34), and even death (2 Macc. 7.1-49; Acts 8.58-60; 12.1-2; Rev. 2.13). Christians could respond by saying that God will ultimately honour them (Rom. 8.18-39; Phil. 3.17-21; 2 Thess. 1.4-10; 1 Pet. 2.20; Rev. 12.10-11). Suffering, insult and persecution is a sign of dishonour in society but a sign of honour within the community that follows Jesus (Acts 14.22; 2 Cor. 4.6-18; Heb. 11.37-40), and by enduring persecution they follow the example of Christ and acquire even more honour (John 15.20; Heb. 12.1-4; 1 Pet. 3.14-17).

CT Articles

Over at Christianity Today are two fine articles:

Why Evangelize the Jews? by Stan Gundry

Heaven Is Not Our Home by N.T. Wright

Paul's View of the Law: Where Should the Study Begin?

When considering the question of Paul's view of the Law one is immediately confronted with a host of preliminary issues and questions. One such issue, for example, is the question of the referent of the term nomos: Does nomos refer to the Mosaic legislation, to the Mosaic Covenant, to a generic principle, to all the above and more?

.

One question however that is not often considered adequately in my view is the question of where such a study should begin. This question is not insignificant since where one begins has a large influence on what one concludes.

.

As I approach the subject I have been surprised that very few if any interpreters begin with Paul's view of the end. What I mean is few begin with a discussion of the function of the Law for end-time judgment/salvation. In Romans 2:5-16 Paul asserts the abiding function of the Law for eschatological judgment ("the doers of the Law will be justified"). If Paul maintains that the Law continues to function as the criteria for judgment at the end of the age, should that not affect one's interpretation of Paul's view of its validity in the present? Would not beginning here preclude or at the very least significantly nuance interpretations which present Paul's theology as a fundamental antithesis between works and faith?

How did we get from Agape to Eucharist?

Darrell Pursiful has an interesting blog post on The Earliest Liturgy: Development and relates to the subject of how eucharistic meals got separated from an agape meal in the early church. I am intrigued as to when, where, and why it happened and whether the separation was a good thing in terms of theology and community.

Jim Hamilton's Lecture on Davidic Typology

My good friend Dr. Jim Hamilton of SWBTS gave the Julius Brown Gay Lecture at Southern Seminary last week on the subject of The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel. An MP3 is available and I believe that MP3's by Graham Goldsworthy on Biblical Theology are also available from SBTS as well.

The Schizophrenia of Q Research

I am currently reading through E. Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: Brill, 2002) and finding his approach to the formation of the NT most enjoyable (it is kinda like J.A.T. Robinson meets Birger Gerhardsson). There's this gem of a quote about Q:

"Q is a single document, a composite document, several documents. It incorporates earlier sources; it is used in different redactions. Its original language is Greek; it is Aramaic; Q is used in different translations. It is the Matthean logia, it is not. It has shape and sequence; it is a collection of fragments. It is a Gospel; it is not. It consists wholly of sayings; it includes narrative. It is all preserved in Matthew and Luke; it is not. Matthew's order of Q is correct; Luke's is correct; neither is correct. It is used by Mark; it is not used by Mark" (pp. 17-18).

Well, I'm dizzy already!

BTW, Ellis is one of my favourite Baptist NT scholars (up there with George Beasley-Murray) and we should look forward to his forthcoming commentary on 1 Corinthians in the ICC series. But don't hold ya breath as last I heard is that he's only up to chapter five.

Bultmann the Marcionite!

As a follow-up to my post on Bultmann the Heretic, I've located a reference that indicates Bultmann's Marcionite tendencies:

"[T]o the Christian faith the Old Testament is no longer revelation as it has been and still is, for the Jews . . . [it] is not in the true sense God's word."

R. Bultmann, "The Significance of the Old Testament for the Christian Faith," in The Old Testament and Christian Faith, ed. B.W. Anderson (New York, 1963): 31-32.

John Stott on the NT

Here is some classic Stott:

"The biblical historians were not historians in the modern sense, writing with scientific detachment. They were theologians too, writing from a divine perspective. They were not morally and spiritually neutral; they were deeply committed to God's cause. The Old Testament history books were regarded as prophecy, and the four lives of Jesus are not biographies but gospels written by evangelists, who were bearing witness to Jesus. Consequently, they selected and arranged their material according to their theological purpose. Moreover, their purpose arose naturally - though also in God's providence - from their temperament, their background and their God-given responsibilities to the people of God. Man and message were related to each other. It was no accident that Amos was the prophet of God's justice, Isaiah of his sovereignty and Hosea of his love; or that Paul was the apostle of grace, James of works, John of love and Peter of hope; or that Luke, the only Gentile contributor to the New Testament, stressed the worldwide embrace of the gospel. The Holy Spirit communicated through each a distinctive and appropriate emphasis."

John Stott, "Culture and the Bible," in Authentic Christianity.

Good Friday Reflection - Jesus Smells!

A week ago my colleague at HTC, Dr. Innes Visagie (a.k.a "the sausage man"), gave a wonderful homily on Eph. 5.1-2: "Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (NIV).

Sacrifices are frequently said provide a pleasing aroma to the Lord (e.g. Gen. 8.21; Exod. 29.18, 25, 41; Lev. 1.9, 13) and they avert his wrath, expiate sin, and effect reconciliation between the offender (us) and the offended party (God).

We experience salvation for one and only one reason: because Jesus smells! The scent of his death turns away the wrath of God against our sin, it is our passover sacrifice, Jesus is our substitute and representative because God smells the death of his son. But note the application here as well (and we can add 2 Cor. 2.14-16). We are to imitate God and love as Christ loved, which means we have to smell as well. Does your life smell as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God? Are you a "living sacrifice" (Rom. 12.1) and do you and your church offer "spiritual sacrifices" acceptable to God" (1 Pet. 2.5).

Smell ya later.

A blessed Easter to all!