Church as Banqueting House

Consider the following verses from Canticles ii:

“As an apple tree among the trees of the forest,
so is my beloved among the young men.
With great delight I sat in his shadow,
and his fruit was sweet to my taste,
He brought me into his banqueting house,
and his banner of me was love.
Sustain me with raisins;
refresh me with apples,
for I am sick with love.”

The theme in these verses seems to be how the bridegroom supplies sweet food to his bride. Indeed, she yearns for him to supply her with more food: raisins and apples. Kings of Israel did lay on feasts for the people: when the Ark of the Covenant was returned to Israel, David sent the people home with bread, meat and raisin cakes. This is certainly the same “shape” as the Lord Jesus’ relationship with the church. He sustains his people with the spiritual food of his word, which is “sweeter than honey” and his people do yearn for that word – at least they ought to: Peter commands his readers to “crave pure spiritual milk” after the manner of a newborn infant. Where does the Lord Jesus do this? Well, the bridegroom in the Song has in his love brought his bride into the banqueting house where they feast. Could this find its antitype in the inclusion of believers in the church (not in the building sense, unlike a terrible notice on the doors of the horrifically overpriced cathedral church of St. Paul)? In his love for his elect, the Lord Jesus died in their place on the cross. When they are saved, they are brought into the church, which is God’s house. Peter writes:

“As you come to him [the Lord Jesus], a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house.” (I Peter ii.4-5)”

When our local congregations, er, congregate, perhaps we need to be conscious that we are going to a feast, wherein God feeds us by his word from those who preach, as well as from our other brothers and sisters in Christ as we minister the word to one another, allowing it to “dwell in us richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in our hearts to God.” (Colossians iii.16) If this is the case, these should be joyous and glad occasions, filled with much anticipation concerning what God is going to say to us. These should be times of celebration as we remember Christ’s love demonstrated so fully in his death on the cross (there is no place for unenthusiastic singing!). Clearly believers don’t cease to be “the church” when we disperse and the Lord Jesus feeds us apart from its gatherings – through the daily reading of and meditation upon Scripture, which is, after all, his Word to his people, and as God’s people speak the word to one another when they meet on other occasions. We are, in that sense, forever in our King’s banqueting hall. Nevertheless, I wonder if this should be especially true of our Lord’s Day (and midweek) meetings which are corporate expressions of our true status as people redeemed from slavery to sin and assembled to hear and respond to God’s law.

Vanity Fair

I had an encouraging time reading some select passages from The Pilgrim’s Progress with some friends this evening. Here is a particularly delightful passage, in which Bunyan tips his hat to the English Reformation.

“And as, in other fairs of less moment, there are several rows and streets under their proper names, where such and such wares are vended; so here, likewise, you have the proper places, rows, streets (viz. countries and kingdoms), where the wares of this fair are soonest to be found. Here is the Britain Row, the French Row, the Italian Row, the Spanish Row, the German Row, where several sorts of vanities are to be sold. But as in other fairs some one commodity is the chief of all the fair, so the ware of Rome and her merchandise is greatly promoted in this fair; only our English nation, with some others, have taken a dislike thereat.”

Too busy for a quiet time?

Have you ever said to yourself that you have so much to do that you simply don’t have enough time to sit and read the Scriptures? Consider these verses from Psalm cxix:

“Even though princes sit plotting against me,
your servant will meditate on your statutes.
Your testimonies are my delight;
they are my counsellors.” (verses 23 and 24)

This believer is in a terrible situation. He has powerful men seeking his downfall and plotting against him. One might expect him to be worried indeed, and do everything in his utmost to defend himself against these men. One would expect him to be a busy man with no time for the Bible. But no! His response is to turn to God’s Word and meditate upon it. He reads the Word and preaches it to himself. He fills his mind with Scripture. His delight is God’s Word. The world would suggest that one’s priorities in the situation of this man would be do plan a strategy of defence, to gather people together to support one against these plotting princes. This would be no time for Bible study. But even then, he turns to the Scriptures for he places such a high value upon them, so important and so delightful it is to him to hear God’s voice. Moreover, the Scriptures resource him for the battle. They are his counsellors: they impart wisdom and understanding, they give him the guidance he needs to know what to do and to endure the trial.

What a refreshing antidote to the temptation to put the Scriptures aside in our busiest moments!

Psalm cxix.11

I have been reprimanded for writing too much on my ‘blog.

Some verses for your consideration from Psalm cxix:

“I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.” (verse 11)

The Psalmist’s desire (as a believer) is not to sin against the Lord. In order to achieve this, he has stored up God’s word in his heart (which means the control-centre of his being). To grow in holiness, this person has heard and read Scripture and has stored it up. He has learnt it and can remember it. He allows it to control his thoughts, desires and actions. It is this taking in of God’s word – his laws, his promises, the revelation of his character contained therein – that restrains him from sin. It is work of God’s word within us that sanctifies us. Let us be much in the reading and meditating upon it.

I hope this is sufficiently brief.

Canticles i.1-4

I have been reading Luke for a little while, so to freshen things up, I have turned to the Song of Solomon. I am new to this book, so help would be appreciated! I like the idea that the Song is about the relationship between king and people (a view propounded by Luther), since the relationship of God’s king to his people seems to be one of husband and bride (I Chronicles xi.1, cf Genesis ii.23). It is thus typical of the relationship between Jesus, the Christ, and his church, the New Testament covenant people of God. It is as the king of God’s people that he is their husband and we are his bride. I am indebted (again!) to Matthew Mason’s ‘blog http://motherkirk.blogspot.com/ : see “King as husband”) which I have thought about and consider to be right. I’m not quite going down the allegorical route otherwise you get all sorts of weird and wonderful things: the two breasts of v. 13 become the two covenants with Christ the fragrant myrrh between them, which is a nice idea, but I don’t think it’s there. Going down the controlled typological route takes the Song seriously as poetry written during the time of Solomon stimulated by real historical circumstances, whilst still seeing the shape of the relationship between Christ and his Church. After all, Solomon is a type of Christ.

The following seems to be a refrain in the Song:

“I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, that you not stir up or awaken love until it pleases.”

This seems to divide the song up into five sections: i.1-ii.7, ii.8-iii.5, iii.6-v.8, v.9-viii.4, viii.5-end. If anyone else has any other good ideas, I’d like to hear them.

The fact that this is the “Song of Songs”, the greatest of songs (cf. “Holy of Holies”) suggests that this is about more than mere physical love. Some of the activity would be frankly immoral if it were. This is an innovation. Do we dismiss centuries of understanding of this text for modern liberal scholarship? The early church saw it as being about Christ. So did the Reformers. So did the Puritans. So did Spurgeon, the Prince of Preachers. So did Ryle (see “A Garden Enclosed” in The Upper Room). Psalm xlv has been helpfully described by Matthew Henry as a “key” to the Song. The language is similar, dealing with anointings, oil, beauty, daughters and virgins, and Hebrews i sees this being fulfilled in the Lord Jesus. It is on this basis that we can say that the Song is a type of the relationship between Christ and the Church.

Here are some thoughts on verses two to four.

The bride longs for the love of the king. She recognizes that this love is better than wine. She would much rather experience the husband’s love than these mere physical pleasures. His very presence is a delight – he is fragrant and his name is a delight. Because of this, virgins love him. The bride asks him to draw her after him – he is the one who must lead – and they run together. They have a destination to which they must quickly hasten – the king’s chambers. See also ii.4, where the bride is brought to the banqueting house.

This is typical of the love that the church should have for Christ. We recognize, do we not, that being a recipient of his love is greater than the pleasures and delights of this world. The Apostle Paul could say, after dismissing his fleshly confidence as loss for the sake of Christ, “Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” His name is a delight to us. He is the one who draws us after him, and the means by which he does this is his cross – John xii.32. The Christian life is a race: we press on to get to our destination. This destination is the new heavens and the new earth. Jesus said that he went to prepare a place for his disciples and that he would return to take them there. If this is the same as ii.4 – the banqueting house – then we can see parallels with the marriage supper in Revelation xix. And the response that this evokes: praise and rejoicing, rejoicing in the greatness of Christ’s love. Because of eschatological tension, Christians have been brought into the king’s chambers – we’re seated with Christ in the heavenlies – but we’re also awaiting the final consummation – we’re not actually there yet. However, because we know that it is secure, we can say in an anticipatory sense that we have been brought into the king’s chambers and his banqueting house.

I hope this is controlled typology, with the fulfilment in Christ having the same “shape” (as it were) that the Song has.

Some useful resources on the Interweb:

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/song/geneva/song1.htm
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/song/gill/song1.htm

Let it snow…

In Oxford today, we are enjoying snow (which – alas! – isn’t settling). Consider verse 16 of Psalm cxlvii: “He gives snow like wool.” In context, the Psalmist is exhorting Zion, which now applies to the Church (cf. Hebrews xii.22-24) to praise Yahweh. Snow is one of the products God’s command which he gives to the earth, his word which runs very swiftly. It is this word which God has graciously given to Jacob (again, this now applies to the Church since those who have put their trust in Christ are the spiritual descendants of Abraham – Galatians iii.7), to the exclusion of all others, who do not know God’s word. So as we look out of our windows or walk through the snow, let’s remember that the snow is a gift from God and the result of his word in action, and praise him for giving that powerful word to us, his covenant people.

Luke v.33-39

Much violence has been done to this text in the past. I fear I have done this myself – thanks to LB for his gentle suggestions regarding the proper exegesis of this text.

It seems to be the expectation of the Pharisees that proper religious activity is what they do and what John’s disciples do: prayer and fasting, and that Jesus’ disciples should do the same. I’m not sure it’s quite about making amends, but rather human religious activity in general, e.g. self-denial (only a very subtle difference). Jesus says that that makes as much sense as trying to make wedding guests fast when the bridegroom is around, i.e. at the heart of the wedding celebration. It’s just not right. Jesus’ disciples eat and drink for they are sinners who have received forgiveness and have been made Jesus’ disciples. It is a joyous thing: Levi throws a feast. (I’d point to v. 29 for this.) In seeking to understand the parables, I’ve tried to identify the points of comparison between the parable and the real situation that Jesus is addressing. The situation seems to be the tension between wedding guests fasting and the presence of the bridegroom, i.e. human religion and the discipleship that Jesus offers. This parallels the old garment and old wineskins, and the new garment and new wine respectively. When Jesus is calling you to repent and offering forgiveness you don’t respond with fasting. The old won’t be properly patched up, and you’ll have ruined the new. The new will have been spilled and the old will be destroyed. One isn’t going to receive forgiveness and in fact, one is heading for destruction. I can see how v. 35 might fit in now, too. It could function as a warning of what would happen if the response to Jesus is simply to fast and pray rather than come to him for forgiveness – he will be taken away and then one would fast – because the opportunity for forgiveness has gone and all that is left is terror – cf. Hebrews x.26. It would certainly be consistent with the idea of tearing the new garment and spilling the new wine. New wine needs fresh wineskins. Could this be that the discipleship that Jesus offers requires requires people who respond in a radically different way (to the Pharisees), i.e. by heeding Jesus call to repent, trusting him, and entering the joy of forgiveness, rather than fasting? Given the incompatibility of people fasting and Jesus offer of discipleship and forgiveness, that Jesus is highlighting, it does seem to be the emphasis that people need to respond in a new way (compared to the Pharisees’ way). V. 39 seems to ask why one would want to go for fasting and ritual prayer when Jesus is the One who makes sinners his disciples. It just doesn’t make sense.

So it’s more about the “old corrupted” (the expectation of the Pharisees and scribes) being contrasted with the “new” (“old corrected/fulfilled”) than old and new covenants in absolute terms. And it’s certainly not about charismatic renewal!

Implications:

The proper response to Jesus is to heed his call to repentance and come to him for forgiveness.
This warns us of the perils of human religious activity: fasting etc. While not intrinsically wrong, it is certainly not necessary and when a substitute for coming to Christ in repentance and faith will lead to damnation and misery.
This also warns us of the perils of refusing the forgiveness that Jesus offers.

Luke v.27-32

Given the amount of effort required to write one of these posts, I’m not going to promise consecutive expositions of Luke’s gospel. I have, however, discovered how to send entries in by e-mail, which makes the whole process a lot more fun. It feels like I’m sharing some encouragement with a friend.

This is the third of a series of three episodes in which Jesus interacts with outcasts of some kind or another. If I were preaching all three in one sermon (given my Puritan tendencies, this is most unlikely), I guess my headings would be “The Leper”, “The Lame” and “The Loathed”. We don’t like giving money to the Tax Man now, but the tax collector would have been reviled in the first century A.D. He worked for the hated Roman invaders, collecting taxes from his own people. He more than likely would have taken more money than he needed too and kept it for himself. Indeed, I understand this practice was encouraged by the Romans. “Tax collector” was synonymous with “notorious sinner”. Jesus sees Levi and says, “Follow me.” Levi left everything, rose and followed him. So often we take these narratives as normative and we make Levi to be an example. Are we to leave our worldly jobs when we become Christians. Perhaps there are some forms of employment that are inconsistent with the gospel. Prostitution springs to mind. Interestingly, working for “the Revenue” isn’t – see Luke iii, 12-13. Besides, Levi is to be one of the twelve, set apart for the preaching of the Word and the establishment (note the little “e” there!) of the church. I am reminded of the words of Paul: “Are all apostles?” (I Corinthians xii.29). To make Levi an example for our lives is, I think, to divorce these verses from their context, and takes the focus off the Lord Jesus, which is surely to rob him of his glory. (This is perhaps symptomatic of human selfishness – from which I am not immune, I hasten to add! – which says that the text is primarily about me. No! As Christopher Ash said on the Cornhill Summer School (and I think he got it from someone else), the Bible is “God preaching God to us”.) The point of verses 27 and 28 are surely this: Jesus makes disciples even of notorious sinners. (Notice the irresistibility of Jesus’ call.)

Levi throws a great feast, and Jesus is there, showing table fellowship – the closest form of fellowship in first century Jewish society – with Levi’s colleagues, more of the notorious tax-collectors. The Pharisees and scribes grumbled: surely the true man of God would keep himself separate from these sinners. Jesus responds by saying that those who are sick are the ones who need a doctor, not the well. In the same way, it’s the sinners (which the Bible tells us means every single man, woman and child) who are the ones who need Jesus’ ministry. They are the ones who need the preaching of the gospel and the call to repentance. That’s why he has gone to them.

Implications

We can’t be too sinful to be disciples of Christ. We can’t say, “Surely God wouldn’t want me.” Jesus will take the worst of sinners.
Jesus came to call sinners to repentance: therefore we must repent, i.e. turn away from our rebellion and turn to Christ, to live with him as our Master and trust in him as our Saviour.
It isn’t right to completely withdraw from sinful people into a holy conclave. Yes, God insists that we keep ourselves pure and undefiled by sin – see, for example, II Corinthians vi.14-vii.1 – and so there may be situations that we don’t go into, so that we are not tempted into sin ourselves, and so that we are not associated with a sinful lifestyle (one particular example, I think, would be clubbing), Jesus came to call sinners to repentance and ours is the same commission.

Luke v.17-26

I’m currently reading through Luke’s gospel and it’s my hope in this ‘blog to share some of my thoughts on it. If I have time, I might publish my musings on earlier chapters. As it is, I’m afraid we’ll have to plunge into the middle of a chapter. I promise to try to be sensitive to the context, though!

In the Benedictus, Zechariah says that the knowledge of salvation that God will give to his people is “in the forgiveness of their sins” – Luke ii.77. When we hear the word “salvation”, we immediately think of forgiveness of sins but really the scope is much wider. The salvation that Zechariah is referring to is deliverance of God’s people from their enemies – see Luke ii.71, 74 – that they might serve God in perpetual holiness and righteousness – Luke ii.75. In God’s tender mercy, he promises to “give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide [his people's] feet into the way of peace” – Luke ii.79 – which is the language the Old Testament prophets used to refer to Restoration from exile and is connected with the putting down of God’s enemies that his people might have peace. See, for example, Isaiah ix.2 and Psalm cvii.3, 10-16. (Providentially, I read Psalm cvii this morning. Whatever you think about Anglicanism and liturgy, the Book of Common Prayer rather helpfully appoints Psalms to be read each day of the month, in the morning and in the evening. I find reading the Psalms aloud a helpful practice – you spot things you wouldn’t otherwise (at least I do!) and what better way is there to start and end the day than by speaking to God in words he has given to his people by which to speak to him.) Getting back to the point, salvation should be primarily seen in terms of God’s faithfulness to his covenant promises and the enlargement of the blessings that were previously enjoyed under it, with an expansion of its beneficiaries to include vast numbers of Gentiles like me, which is made possible by the forgiveness of sins. This, according to Zechariah, finally comes in the time of Christ, of whom his son, John, is the forerunner.

So in Luke v.20, when Jesus declares that the sins of the paralytic are forgiven, he is claiming to be the One who brings about God’s salvation through the forgiveness of sins, which we know is brought about through his death on the cross, suffering the punishment for sins in the place of those Jesus came to save. The Pharisees who had gathered to see Jesus in action (Luke v.17) were perturbed by Jesus’ statement and they rightly asked, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Sin is above all an offence to God and so only he has the right to forgive it. They only go halfway in their thinking though accusing Jesus in their hearts of blasphemy. Jesus sees into their hearts and asks why they question him. Clearly they are inexcusable for their unbelieving response to him. Jesus then asks whether it is easier to say, “Your sins are forgiven you,” or, “Rise and walk,” to which the answer is, “It is easier to say that your sins are forgiven.” But how can one really know? Jesus then heals the man as a proof that he has the authority to forgive sins.

The logic is something like this: “I claim to have the authority to forgive sins. You can’t tell that this man’s sins have actually been forgiven. Therefore, to prove my authority, I will do something visible to prove it, something that itself is difficult, indeed, requires the miraculous.” This Jesus does. Often, people then say that simply because Jesus did the sign that he said he would do, his claim is proved. But I think this is to miss the context of salvation as covenant restoration. The healing of the lame is one of the explicit characteristics of the Restoration, when God returns to his people, delivers them from their enemies and blesses them greatly as relationship with him is restored – see Isaiah xxxv.6, Jeremiah xxxi.8 and Micah iv. According to Leviticus xxi, physical defects including lameness prevents access to God because of his holiness and perfection. If the lame are healed, then access to God is restored. Jesus is the one who has come to bring about the forgiveness of sins, and by healing the paralytic, Jesus is identifying himself as the Christ who is bringing about the Restoration, at the heart of which is the forgivenes of sins. God alone has the authority to forgive sins: this identifies Jesus as the God who has come to his people to deliver them.

Implications:

We must go to Jesus for forgiveness.
We live in the in-between times, so while the coming age has broken into this age in Jesus, we can’t expect the full blessings of the Restoration now. Nevertheless, this passage tells us something we can look forward to in the Restoration and from which we can draw much comfort in the present: physical healing. If we are Christ’s, if we are included in the covenant by responding to him in faith (i.e. putting our trust in him), then we can be confident that one day, no matter how bad things get now, all will be perfect in the new heavens and the new earth which Jesus will usher in when he returns.

Would someone please tell me if I am “hitting straight”, to use Dick Lucas’s phrase!