Redeeming the time with Packer and the Puritans

While there’s not much action on the labour ward, and before I try to get a few more hours’ sleep to further disrupt my sleep-wake cycle in order that I can stay up late tonight catching babies, I thought a little post from the Great Western Hospital in Swindon was in order.

Reformed Theological Seminary in America have an excellent series of lectures given by Dr J I Packer on the Puritans in 1988 on their iTunes page. Although such a casual use of these lectures might be considered a bit of a travesty my some, they made the walk into town on Sunday evening, and the journey to Swindon after church, much more profitable.

Packer starts by defending the Puritans against the commonly-held misunderstanding that they were characterised by a morbid, cheerless disposition and a disapproval of material pleasure and culture. In the last century, four main scholars (whose names elude me at the moment) revisited Puritan work and found this not to be the case, as did a musician in the previous century who studied the Puritan contribution to the arts (but whose work was ignored). At the wedding of Oliver Cromwell’s grand-daughter, for instance, there was dancing until 3 o’clock in the morning, and there was dancing following the ordination of the great Puritan divine Jonathan Edwards. Packer’s repeated use of the phrase “whooping it up” throughout the series of lectures draws a smile . It is worth noting that such misconceptions about the Puritans prevail in scholarly circles today. They were certainly held by a friend of mine who recently graduated from Oxford with a degree in History and Politics. But then again, why bother studying the original writings when you can read prejudiced secondary sources with their own non-Christian agenda?

Packer introduces the Puritan character with a reading of, and commentary on, John Geree’s, The Character of an Old English Puritan or Non-Conformist, the text of which can be found HERE on A Puritan’s Mind. This is an excellent apologetic for Puritan spirituality and practice which we would do well to recover.

The Puritan’s concern was to honour God above all. In his dealings with others, he sought to be just and fair. In public worship, the Puritan was greatly concerned for order and submitted to authority where it was not acting against the word of God, but the Bible above all was his rule, so that he did not endorse the enforcement of practices which the Bible did not require, and which misled others. The Puritans were therefore not opposed to liturgy per se, but Packer draws our attention to four areas in which the Puritans objected to the Book of Common Prayer: the requirement of ministers to wear the surplice (because, they said, it gave the impression the minister was a mediating priest and had closer access to God, rather than beign a sinner saved by grace – Packer, quite rightly in my view, seems not to think that the surplice was really an issue, describing it as clerical uniform, much like a lounge suit is clerical uniform in some traditions nowadays), the requirement to kneel at communion (because it suggested the physical presence of Christ in the elements), the use of the wedding-ring (because continued to propagate the Roman error that marriage was a sacrament, of which the ring was the substance) and the signing of the cross in baptism (because it not part of Scriptural baptism, and leads to superstition about what is being done). None of these, I would suggest, are battles that need to be fought now. Each generation brings it own. Nevertheless, the underlying principle is sound and we would do well to practise it ourselves.

The Puritan was a prayerful man- at the beginning and the end of the day, on his own (where he often prayed aloud, a practise that has disappeared for some reason, but which Packer recommends as an antidote to a wandering mind in prayer), with his family (the Puritans were the ones who really developed the idea that each home was a little church with the father as its pastor, who had the right and responsibility to teach his family the word and ways of God) and in the meetings of the church. Ex tempore prayers, in which present circumstances were addressed, were valued, but so were set prayers. Again we are reminded that the Puritans did not reject liturgy; they only objected to its corruption.

The Puritan valued the reading of the word of God, both individually and in the meetings of the church. He did not, however, consider the reading of the word of God to be the preaching of the word of God. Packer explains that this is a reference to the absence of sermons in many parish churches which people like Hooker tried to suggest wasn’t a problem, as the lectionary appointed much of the Bible to be read. The Puritans, rightly, were not satisfied with this, and put a high premium on preaching in the church. That is not to say that they thought preaching Scripture was more important than reading Scripture. Geree writes of the Puritan (and this is not mentioned in Packer’s lecture, but is excellent), “the word read he esteemed of more authority, but the word preached of more efficiency.” For the Puritan, the best preaching was that which led to understanding, moved one’s underlying attitudes and emotions, and was memorable.

The Puritans regarded Sunday as the Lord’s Day, the Christian Sabbath, and so rested on it in so far as it led to holiness (so that the Puritan did not completely avoid means of refreshment on that day, only their priority was holiness and spiritual growth). The Lord’s Day was the “mart day” of the soul, the day when the soul would be supplied with all that it needed for growth. The Puritan would go to church twice on a Sunday if he could in order to be spiritually fed. The Puritan would receive baptism as an infant, to which he would look back as a summons to faith and as a promise of God’s blessing to be claimed. The Puritan valued the Lord’s Supper above all as “an ordinance of nearest communion with Christ” so preparation before Communion, as indeed before every Lord’s Day, was essential. I wonder how many of us are satisfied with just turning up to church once on a Sunday, thinking we have done all God has required of us, without any preparation at all. The Puritans have much to teach us.

For the Puritan, religion was no mere private thing. It was a matter that touched the whole of life, so that the best Christians were the best husbands, wives, parents, children, masters, servants, magistrates and subjects. His household was to be a Christian one, employing godly servants and bringing up children in the fear of God. The Puritan was compassionate towards the needy, looking with tenderness on others’ misery and counting generous and cheerful (note, cheerful, not dour) mercy a duty. He conducted himself with gravity (again, not to be confused with being miserable, but meaning that they took matters of eternity seriously), so that although he enjoyed the blessings of God in this life, he avoided their abuse, and costliness and vanity. The Puritan considered the Christian life as a battle.

In order that we better understand the Puritans, Packer then gives us a history lesson, from the beginning of the time people were called Puritans in the 1560s, through the reign of the Stuart kings, the Commonwealth and Restoration, to 1689 and the Act of Toleration. We learn clearly of the struggles the Puritans faced, particularly during the reign of Charles II when thousands of clergy had to resign their pulpits and were imprisoned when, following ministry in London during the time of plague when they pastored those who had been abandoned by the clergy of London at the time, they refused to stop preaching in private homes and barns and leading worship in forms not authorised by law. Parallels with the underground church in China are noted. This is very helpful for people like me who were taught this in school at about the age of 12 or 13 and who have since forgotten it all. Packer reminds us of those areas in which the Puritans called for reform – liturgy, preaching and church government (which should be presbyterian – hence the name “Puritan” was redundant after 1640s because it became synonymous with “Presbyterian” – rather than prelatical). About the only thing the Puritans got which they wanted was a new translation of the Bible during the reign of King James I and VI. The King James Version / Authorised Version was, according to Packer, a better translation than even the excellent Geneva Bible, and it didn’t have marginal notes (Packer dislikes marginal notes, as do I, detracting as it does from the word of God).

More may follow as I listen on, but I hope you can see that we would do well to recovery Puritan spirituality, making the glory of God our supreme aim in every aspect of our lives, at work, at church and at home, ordering them according to the word of God, valuing liturgy in the church insofar as it accords with the word of God and calling for reform where it doesn’t, being much in prayer and esteeming the reading and preaching of Scripture.

Should we talk to babies?

On the question of infant baptism, Luther and Calvin held together their belief on salvation through faith with infant baptism on the basis that infants can believe. Since faith is the human response of trust towards God, allegience in a personal relationship, and since infants can respond to other persons (they respond to their mother’s voice, they trust their parents, they can distinguish strangers), why can they not trust God, who is nearer than any human being, and whose presence is mediated through his people? Relationship is established through symbols – we talk to our infants, and demonstrate love through gestures such as hugs and kisses. Peter Leithart, in his book The Baptized Body (Canon Press 2007, ISBN 1-59128-048-6), writes:

“As we establish loving and trusting relationship with our infants through symbols, so God speaks to infants and establishes a relation with them through the “visible word” of baptism. Thus the question “Should we baptise babies?” is of a piece with the question “Should we talk to babies?” Paedobaptism is neither more nor less odd and miraculous than talking to a newborn. In fact, that is just what paedobaptism is: God speaking in water to a newborn child.” (p. 10)

Just as there is no irrationality in speaking to a child through they may not understand or fully respond for months, because there is an expectation that the child will learn to understand and respond, so “we baptize infants and consciously remind them of their baptism and its implications so they will come to understanding and mature faith. We name them so they will grow up to respond to that name; we speak to them so they will begin to speak back; we name them in baptism so they will begin to live in and out of baptism.” (p. 11)

Sacraments Do Things To You

On returning to 47 Copse Lane this afternoon from Swindon (where I am currently placed for my Obstetrics and Gynaecology rotation, and which is one reason why ‘blogging has been scant of late), I took possession of The Baptized Body by Peter Leithart (ISBN 1-59128-048-6). This is a short, accessible book on the subject of baptismal efficacy. We shall have to see whether I end up going further in what I say about baptism than I have already (in, for example my post “Baptised into his death“).

Concerns about attributing too much power to water in baptism when interpreting “baptism” in Romans 6 as meaning the water-rite are based on a false belief that created things have efficacy in themselves, some power or force of their own. In reality, all things exist through the sustaining work of the Son who holds all things together. Only the Triune God has efficacy “in itself”.

Not attributing efficacy to the rite of baptism is based on a misunderstanding of the identity of human beings. The false assumption in this case is that our physical being and our spiritual being are completely separate entities. So water baptism can only affect the external part of me. The inner part of me remains untouched. But although the inner and outer man can be distinguished, humans beings are a union of body and soul (which is why the doctrine of the resurrection of the body and the new creation is so important). One affects the other intimately. And so it is not unreasonable to suggest that external events like baptism affects the person as a whole. Other rites affect the whole person – in wedding ceremonies, a single man becomes a husband, for example. It is the whole man who becomes a husband. He is not just externally a husband. Sacraments change reality. Baptism changes who a person is. Leithart writes:

“Whatever else we must say about a baptized person…we can say with utter confidence that he is baptized, that a minister has poured water on his body in the name of the Triune God, and that this is an inrreversible event in his “beginning in the world.” He emerges from the waters of the baptism, and that fact alone means he is a new person. He has received a new name, a new identity, a new past, and he is called to a new future. Abdul [a hypothetical baptizand] is no longer simply Abdul, and he is not simply wet Abdul. Abdul is baptized Abdul. That means the “real Abdul” has been changed.” (p. 7)

The separation between symbol and reality is a false one. This is the case in language. “All language is symbolic because it employs visual symbols or sounds that mean something other than themselves” (p. 19). “Relationships do not exist at all apart from the symbolic and ceremonial exchanges” (pp. 20-21). Applying this to sacraments:

“They are (with the Word and through the Spirit) the matrix of personal communion with the Triune God. The symbolism involved in sacraments is the symbolism of action, less like the symbolism of a painting or a metaphor than the symbolism of a handshake or a wave or a kiss. They are the symbols by and through and in which personal, covenantal relationships are forged and maintained… In all normal circumstances… the invisible features of our relation with God occur within the framework of visible signs, rites, and seals that constitute the covenant. Sacraments are not “signs of an invisible relationship with Christ,” as if a relationship with Christ might occur without them. Rather, the intricate fabric of exchanged language, gesture, symbol, and action is our personal relationship with God.” (p. 21)

Brilliant.

Assisted Reproduction

The story of Hannah in 1 Samuel 1 (and all the other instances of barrenness in the Bible, which are legion) illustrates the effect of childlessness on couples: anxiety, distress, sorrow, depression, the experience of others looking down on one. Advances in medical science have made it possible for couples unable to have children to conceive and although many elements of current practice are, from a Biblical perspective, wrong, it is possible for a Christian to steer his or her course through this issue.

Before you proceed, I ought to warn readers that this post does get quite medical at this point. It should be comprehensible but it may not be for everyone’s constitution.

Interventions can be fairly minimal: stimulation of the woman with drugs to produce eggs so that the chance of conception by natural intercourse is increased, and intrauterine insemination, where the normal mechanism is bypassed and prepared sperm are injected into the uterine cavity to coincide with egg release, are both possibilities. The use of sperm and egg donors is also possible. I can think of no Biblical reason why this should not be done. There is no extra-marital sexual activity taking place. It is no different to a kidney transplant in effect: in both cases specialised tissue is being donated to restore a normal physiological function. There may be issues of either paternal or maternal identification with the child on an individual couple-to-couple basis that would have to be worked through.

It is in more severe cases that we enter more dangerous grounds including IVF. In principle, this is acceptable. A woman is stimulated to release more mature eggs (which would otherwise be wasted that month) and the sperm, which may have deficiencies in motility or number are either brought into proximity with the eggs, or in more extreme cases, injected into the egg. Fertilised eggs are then incubated. On average, 9 embryos are produced per patient in IVF and the law permits the transfer of two (or exceptionally 3) embryos into the uterus. Usually, those with the best appearance are selected and implanted.

Of the surplus suitable embryos may be frozen and stored for five years (this may be incrased following counselling) for future IVF cycles should the current cycle not result in a pregnancy. There is the option of research if the embryos are unsuitable for freezing or couples for some reason do not want it. Research is permitted by law on embryos up to 14 days. This is on the basis that this is the time when a structure called the primitive streak appears which forms a rudimentary nervous system and at this point, the embryo can no longer divide to form twins. The argument goes that only then is the embryo an individual because prior to that, it has the potential to form twins (i.e. two individuals) and so it cannot be considered to be an individual (as one individual coming from two individuals is nonsense). This is one of the standard arguments in medical ethics against life beginning at conception but the assumption that one individual cannot become two individuals must be challenged. It is clearly not alien to the Bible’s view of individuality – see Genesis 2.22. Research on embryos up to 14 days and then disposing of them must be considered by Christians to be unacceptable. These embryos are human beings.

A Christian couple wanting IVF may therefore request that they only want two eggs fertilised in an IVF cycle (if more are harvested, they could be frozen, although survival, fertilisation and implantation rates are low – 1% ongoing pregnancy rate / thawed oocyte). This will of course vastly reduce the chances of the production of embryo and may increase the need for further IVF cycles and thus the financial burden. Even if the quality of the embryo isn’t particularly great, if it is all that has been produced it can be transferred. Again, it reduces the chance of a successful pregnancy. The only embryos that will not be implanted those with three pronuclei (i.e. two sperms have fertilised one egg) and eggs with one pronucleus (it thinks it has been fertilised but it hasn’t). The former will not develop into a baby. If it is transferred and implants into the placenta it will form what is called a hydatidiform mole, an abnormal proliferation of trophoblastic tissue, embryonically derived tissue that will form a large part of the placenta. The latter will not implant into the placenta. There is therefore no moral reason why these embryos cannot be discarded.

There is the further possibility, if the couple allow for a greater number of eggs to be fertilised, of embryo donation to another childless couple, again, obviating the need for discarding embryos. Apart from the fact that the embryo develops in the womb of a woman who has not supplied any genetic material to it, I can see no real difference between this and adoption.

Although current legislation and practice allow for practices which are in the Bible’s view sinful, there are means by which IVF as a gift of God’s common grace may therefore be appropriately used as way of showing compassion to childless couples and help them conceive, without the need for concurrent destruction of human life.

1 Samuel 1.1-2.11 Sermon Outline

This has been quite a hard passage to prepare. The challenge has been to preach the passage biblically-theologically, rather than preaching Biblical Theology. As ever, comments and suggestions are welcome, particularly on things that could be dropped.

Introduction

Where is hope for the future to be found?
The suggestion of Live Earth a few weeks ago, and humanists and communists in the last century that hope for the future lies in us and our achievements; in the case of humanism, human goodness and science led to two world wars. Communism led to fear, tyranny and oppression.
The writer of 1 Samuel wants to show us where true hope is to be found.

1 God’s servant afflicted (1.1-19)

Introduce the family; comment that God does not endorse bigamy (rare, always portrayed in a negative light). Retell the story, explaining that the LORD is the God of the Bible, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Look at how Hannah is affected (it depresses her) and consider the cause of her trouble: the Lord closed her womb. Look at Hannah’s response: she prays to the Lord. Her vow is not arm-twisting but an expression of her love. She still remains faithful to God, trusts him and makes him her hope.

God does not spare his people from affliction, distress and longing; it is sometimes, even often his will for them to go through it and all they can do is cling to him.

This is the pattern of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2.23). Illustrate with an episode from Charles Simeon’s life who was made to see that his affliction was having the cross laid upon him. This is the shape of the life of God’s people.

Perhaps this is the case for you at the moment in some way – family tragedy, job loss, health crisis – and it’s grinding you down and you’re depressed, brought to your knees, and all you can do is cry out to God.

How does God answer Hannah’s prayer. It really matters because it shows us whether hope for the future to be found in God, or whether it is an empty hope.

2 God’s salvation revealed (1.19-2.11)

Retell story. Narrative isn’t normative. We see in Hannah’s prayer the significance of what God has done for her. God is unique in his holiness and in the fact that he knows everything and so is able to judge justly. The way God has acted in Hannah’s life is the way God consistently acts and will come to a climax in the future. Illustration of a model church – the same shape as the real thing, but in miniature. In vv. 4-8,  we have a series of reversals which touch every area of life and the shape is the same. When God acts to judge, those who are self-sufficient and have all that they need, who are confident in themselves, will be humbled by God, will be brought low and will have nothing. It is those who are in a low position, who have no confidence in themselves and their circumstances, who are poor and weak, who are lifted up by God and experience his deliverance. God is able to do this because he is completely sovereign over the world – it belongs to him, and he has made it stable and well-ordered.

God’s characteristic way of acting will be shown in the future and God’s people will be guarded and the wicked will be cut off, which follows from what goes before because the experience of God’s people in this world is one of weakness and lowliness and sorrow and the gateway to becoming part of God’s people is to come empty-handed and abandon all self-sufficiency to make him their hope. It is that relationship with him that causes them to be guarded; it is not a matter of might. God’s judgment and conquest of his enemies will extend to the ends of the earth and it will be carried out through his powerful king. The idea of the king comes from the context of Judges: Israel is oppressed and descends into immorality which is Hannah’s dysfunctional family situation on a grand scale and the causes is that Israel had no king in those days. God’s gift of a son to Hannah means that Israel will have a king and he will be the one who brings God’s justice.

This starts to be fulfilled in Saul and then David (defeat of the Philistines, defence of Keilah etc.) but adversaries still remain and judgment does not extend to the ends of the earth. Then comes great David’s greater Son. Christ means “anointed one”. We have already seen in his experience of being reviled and suffering that Hannah’s experience anticipates his. His resurrection proves vv. 4-8 and guarantees v. 10. This is Paul’s logic in Acts 17.31. The promises of v. 10 will be fulfulled when Christ returns but God’s people are safe through Christ’s death on the cross in their place (because they deserve nothing better than God’s adversaries).

So there is great comfort here when we face situations like Hannah’s. It is not a promise that God will answer all our prayers in the way that he answered Hannah’s but in her deliverance, and in all the deliverances it pleases God sometimes to give us, we see God’s Deliverance when he raises up his feeble, lowly people.

It is also a great challenge – to enter into that, we need to be those who are feeble, poor and needly, comign empty-handed and depending on God’s grace in Christ and live that life so often shaped by weakness and affliction.

Conclusion

“Baptized into his death”

In Romans 6, Paul in answer to the suggestion that that believers ought to continue in sin that grace may about declares that believers have died to sin and therefore cannot still live in it. This death to sin, Paul says, occurred at baptism when we were united with Christ in his death. “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death.”

In my experience from Bible studies and sermons, Evangelicals, in their right concern to be wary of teaching sacraments save us ex opere operato as the Romanists erroneously assert, can get a little bit sniffy about Romans 6.3-4. By baptism, we are told, Paul means conversion. So we are reminded that in Paul’s day, baptism closely followed conversion. If someone wanted to become a Christian, they would ask for baptism. (From the New Testament material, we can see that this is of course true, and isn’t there a rebuke here for our tendency to delay the baptism of unbaptised believers for months and even years after their conversion? From what follows, it should be evident that to delay the baptism of an unbaptised believer deprives them of not only a means of great assurance, but also of sanctification.) Or we are told that Paul means the baptism of the Spirit, which occurs at conversion and unites us to Christ. One can imagine someone peering over Paul’s shoulder as he wrote, saying, “I wouldn’t put it quite like that, Paul.”

I think that when Paul says that we were buried with him by baptism into death, he means that we were buried with Christ by baptism into death, plainly and simply the pouring-water-over-you kind of baptism. If Paul meant that we were united with Christ when we believed on him, he would have said so. If he meant that we were united with Christ when we received the Holy Spirit, he would have said so. Paul is saying that at our baptism, we were baptized into Christ’s death, that we were united with him in his death.

He says this, because baptism is the sign and seal of that inward work of the Spirit in the heart of the believer who creates faith in Christ and the union with him that results, proclaiming God’s grace to the recipient, the church and the world. It is, if you like, the official rebirthday of the recipient. That is the day to which we are to look back to see our union with Christ and thus to see that we have died to sin in him and so are no longer to live under its mastery. The Puritans, far from advocating mere individualistic internal piety, affirmed the value of “improving” one’s baptism. It makes sense in light of the widespread experience of Christians that they cannot specify a particular time when they were converted, but that the Spirit of God worked in their lives over an extended period of time.

This is perfectly consistent with the baptism of infants (the propriety of which I intend at some later stage to defend more systematically). The child can be brought up to look back to its baptism, the promises of God which baptism advertises and the death to sin which it proclaims, and thus be summoned to faith and holiness. On that day their public life as a Christian began and to that they must remain faithful.

Oh that we would shake off the fetters of mere private pietism that characterises so much Evangelicalism of the present age, and recover a Reformed view of the importance of baptism which would allow us when we are tempted to sin to say with Luther, when he was lacking assurance, “Baptizatus sum“: I have been baptized.

Thoughts on 1 Samuel 1-2.11

I shall, God willing, be preaching a sermon on 1 Samuel 1-2.11 in a few weeks’ time but I thought this time that I would depart from my usual custom of putting up an abbreviated form of my sermon notes once I have written it, and instead put up some of the fruit of my preparation.

Structure

This hasn’t been noticed in any of the commentaries I have read but this section appears to divide neatly into two sections:

God’s servant afflicted	God’s salvation revealed
Elkanah and his family at home: Hannah childless (1.1-2)	Elkanah and his family at home: Hannah has a child (1.19b-20)
Elkanah and his family go up to Shiloh to sacrifice to YHWH (1.3-8)	Elkanah and his family go up to Shiloh to sacrifice to YHWH (1.21-24)
Hannah praying at the house of YHWH and speaking to Eli (1.9-18)	Hannah praying at the house of YHWH and speaking to Eli (1.25-2.10)
They go home to Ramah (1.19a)	They go home to Ramah (2.11)

Theme

God looks on the affliction of his believing servant and raises her up in answer to her prayer by giving her a child, fitting the shape of his consistent salvation.

Christ

Hannah depicted the salvation of Israel in her crisis (no king, civil war, oppression from the surrounding nations), pointing us forward to the deliverance of God’s people through Christ.

The shape of Hannah’s life of humiliation and exaltation is the same as that of Christ’s death and resurrection, into which the life of the Christian is also moulded. He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.

God’s judgment of the world, giving strength to his king and exalting the power of his anointed, while destroying his enemies (2.10) finds its fulfilment in the person and work of Christ.

The pattern of Samuel’s life is repeated in that of John the Baptist:

Samuel	John the Baptist
Hannah barren	Elizabeth barren
Samuel to be a Nazirite (1 Samuel 1.11)	John to be a Nazirite (Luke 1.15)
Samuel anoints David and the Spirit rushes on him (1 Samuel 16.13)	John baptises Jesus and the Spirit descends upon him (Luke 3.21-22)

Implications

Although Hannah has a specific role in God’s redemption plan (which will be a major factor in how this passage is applied) and while narrative isn’t normative so that we musn’t claim too much from it, Hannah is nonetheless a believer, and there are parallels between her situation and the circumstances God’s people so often find themselves in. Her behaviour is a good illustration of 1 Peter 4.6-7: “Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him because he cares for you.” She did not know the role she would play in redemptive history when she acted as she did.

Furthermore, God’s response to her prayer shows the way he can and does sometimes act in the lives of his people, raising them out of lowly situations in which they find themselves, so we may see our deliverances, too, as microcosms of God’s bigger Deliverance.

Believers in their affliction can take comfort in the ultimate salvation that Christ achieved at the cross and will consummate when he returns.

All need to make sure that they are God’s ‘faithful ones’ (2.9), those who belong to God’s people through faith in Christ and persevere in that faith. All need to make sure that they are not the proud and arrogant (v. 3), the mighty (v. 4), the full (v. 5), the wicked (v. 9) but rather that they are the feeble, hungry, poor and needy – those who humble themselves and come empty handed to Christ to receive his free salvation to which they must recognize they can contribute nothing.

There is perhaps a point here about the mysterious providence of God. He is sovereign behind Hannah’s infertility (vv. 5 and 6). He does allow his people to go through times of affliction without them understanding the reason for it. In fact, he is using her to bring glory to himself because her son will be the man who will anoint David, whose seed is the Lord Jesus Christ. God’s power is made perfect in weakness. God chooses what is weak in the world to shame the strong. He chooses what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are (1 Corinthians 1.27-28).

Preaching Christ from the Old Testament

In the penultimate chapter of his book, The Word Became Fresh, Dale Ralph Davies rightly insists, “We must read Old Testament narrative with a theocentric focus.” Where we disagree is his addendum, in which he defends his view that although we should preach Christ from Old Testament texts, there is no reason why we must, from every text.

He makes the fair point that in Luke 24, Jesus is teaching that all parts of the Old Testament testify of Christ, not necessarily that every Old Testament passage or text does. But if Jesus Christ is the melodic line running through all the Scriptures, if the (Old Testament) Scriptures that bear witness about him (John 5.39) and if the sacred writings (again, the OT is primarily in view) are able to make us “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3.15), why in our preaching of the Old Testament (along with the rest of the Bible) would we not want to try and preach Christ from every text? In all our preaching, is not Christ to be our subject?

Moreover, I think Davis is wrong in his assessment that not every Old Testament text is about Christ. I think it is possible to preach Christ from every passage, without losing the riches of the texts as narratives in their own right. I have found Sinclair B Ferguson’s little booklet, which I picked up from the Cornhill Summer School a couple of summers ago a great help in this regard (It may be downloaded for free HERE).

Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, he says, should be instinctive, not formulaic – we don’t just do our work on exegesis of the text, put it through a machine so that out pops a sermon on Christ. Nevertheless, he gives us four principles to start us off.

1. The relationship between promise and fulfilment (e.g. Genesis 3.15 and much of the rest of the Bible after that; the Quad Promise can be seen as an elaboration of this)
2. The relationship between type and antitype (in, for example the sacrificial system, as well as in pattern repetition between events in Old Testament history and events in the life of Christ)
3. The relationship between the covenant and Christ (both covenant and gospel follow the principle that imperatives are always rooted in the indicatives of God’s grace, the covenant at Sinai in its weakness pointed forward to a greater and fuller deliverance and a better consummation, and the covenant principle of blessing and cursing points us forward to the eternal consequences of acceptance or rejection of the gospel)
4. Proleptic participation and subsequent realisation (Old Testament saints were justified by grace through faith in the Saviour, and they are sanctified as saints who live since the coming of Christ are – their lives are shaped around the form of Christ’s death and resurrection.

I agree with Ferguson’s conclusion:

“If these principles hold good, then it must be possible along different lines, sometimes using one, sometimes using a combination, to move from any point in the Old Testament into the backbone of redemptive history which leads ultimately to Christ its fulfilment and consummation. In this way, the context and destination for all our preaching will be Jesus Christ himself, Saviour and Lord.”

Preaching from the Old Testament

 

Perhaps the book with the naffest title in history is The Word Became Fresh by Dale Ralph Davis (Christian Focus, ISBN 184550192-6). This is a short book (154 pages) on how to preach from Old Testament narrative texts. There are plenty of detailed books on the subject (such as He Gave Us Stories by Richard Pratt – see posts HERE and HERE – to which Davis himself refers) but this is a quick and easy to read collection of pointers on how to interpret and apply Old Testament narrative nexts. If you have listened to Davis’s talks for the Proc. Trust on handling OT narrative (available as the CD The Liberating Lord), then much of the material will be very familiar. Davis succeeds in removing the interpretation of Old Testament narrative from the realm of priest-craft to which it has been consigned by much scholarship so that its riches can again benefit the church.

After exhorting us to pray, he gives us five questions we should ask of a text:

• Why (what is the writer’s intention?)
• Where (what is its literary and historical context?)
• How (what is the structure of the passage?)
• What (what is the content of the passage?)
• So what (application of the passage).

He points us to features in biblical narrative of which we should have an awareness:

• Eavesdropping (when the reader has knowledge the characters don’t)
• Selectivity (what the writer includes and what he omits)
• Sarcasm
• Imagination (extensive descriptions to build up a picture and give an impression)
• Surprise
• Emphasis (repetition)
• Intensity (passages in which a lot of information is packed densely)
• Tension

He highlights the importance of Biblical theology in OT interpretation, namely the “Quad Promise” of Genesis 12 and following, consisting of a people, protection/presence, a programme (of blessing for the nations) and a place. He also advises the consideration of the message and structure of large sections of narrative.

In appropriating or applying texts, he warns against immediately identifying with all the heroes of passages and claiming too much for oneself from narratives. He offers a number of handles that can help with application:

• Procedural – analysing what the characters are doing
• Conceptual – changing the way we think
• Situational – analysing what a character is facing
• Judicial – looking at the biblical writer’s appraisal of a character or event
• Doxological – responding with praise to God

Davis gives ample examples from Old Testamant narrative to demonstrate the points he is making, culminating in the final chapter with a suggested exposition of Exodus 1-2. There is much rich material to help out with a vast number of passages.

At £9.99, this book is a little over-priced for its size and content, but is well worth a read and is as profitable for the pulpit as the prie-dieu.

Christians and Pre-Natal Infanticide

This post should be prefaced by the following words from the apostle Paul to Timothy: “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” – 1 Timothy 1.15. There is no sin which cannot be pardoned by God’s grace through faith in Christ.

I’ve just started my fifth year of Medical School with an Obstetrics and Gynaecology rotation and this afternoon we had a seminar on reproductive ethics. Originally, this dealt solely with assisted reproduction and the discussion of abortion was eschewed on the basis that students arrived with fixed views. This has since changed and we dealt mainly with abortion this afternoon.

It was a frustrating session because what a number of us saw as being the main point for consideration, namely the moral status of the foetus, only received a few minutes’ attention and we spent most of the time discussing factors such as responsibility (in, for example rape cases), the likely future of the child etc., factors which only really make sense to discuss once the moral status of the foetus has been established.

The Bible insists that God is the only life-giver (Acts 17.25) and man is created in imago Dei (Genesis 1.26) so human life has sanctity. Man is the climax of God’s creation. Man of all God’s creatures has been given a soul (Genesis 2.7). Human life begins at conception. In Psalm 139, we learn that in the womb, God is at work, forming a new personal entity – “you knitted me together in my mother’s womb” (v. 14) whom he knows in relationship. From conception, human beings have a moral status. When David confesses his sin in Psalm 51, he acknowledges that his sinfulness goes back to before he was born: “In sin did my mother conceive me” (v. 5). Morever, the Bible enjoins upon us the obligation to protect the helpless (e.g. Psalm 82.3-4), of whom the unborn child is the supreme example, and the killing of such, and the shedding of innocent blood is condemned (Psalm 94.6, Psalm 106.38, Jeremiah 22.3). Abortion is murder and is therefore wrong.

Consider this, even from an extra-Biblical perspective. When an egg is fertilised by a sperm to form a zygote, a genetically new individual is produced. The difference between an embryo, a foetus and a baby is merely in stage of development, not in identity. Being inside or outside the womb doesn’t matter – a newborn baby is just as dependent on its mother for nutrition and protection as a foetus is, even if it isn’t plumbed in to the mother’s circulation and located inside her. Legally, however, a baby is only alive once it has been born. One example illustrates how awfully ridiculous this distinction is. If a termination is carried out in late pregnancy, as is lawful in the case of serious birth defects, and the baby is not killed in utero and is delivered still alive but damaged, then its status is that of a living child and so to kill it would rightly be murder. If it is actually killed in utero, then it isn’t murder.

What are the implications for Christians in medical practice? As a student, I am not obliged to have anything whatsoever to do with abortion, not even at the level of witnessing a discussion about its possibility. The head of the department told us yesterday that in his career, he has never performed an abortion. Doctors may refuse on grounds of consciencious objection to carry out an abortion without penalty (as long as the abortion isn’t necessary to save the life or prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the mother) but they may be found negligent for failing to advise a women of the possibility of an abortion and referring them to a colleague, particularly in a general practice setting. However, one is surely still complicit with the abortion even if one does not carry it out or organise it oneself and instead refers the patient to a colleague. Moreover, it is causing a colleague to commit the crime too. The only option for the Christian doctor, it seems to me, in the situation that he or she is approached for an abortion, is to explore the issues that might have caused the request and show that abortion isn’t necessary, and suggest other options, such as adoption. If, after all that, they still want an abortion, it is not right for them to refer them to a colleague, and I think they have to accept the risk that they might get struck off for negligence. Like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, they have to refuse to bow down to the idol that has been set up and face the fiery furnace. There doesn’t appear to be another course of action.

Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda

The church reformed, and always to be reformed…

Welcome to my new weblog. I fancied a bit of a change, and thought I’d give trendy WordPress a go.

The agenda is still the same: to discuss Reformed theology, church history and Biblical exposition to the glory of God.

"Addressing one another in Psalms…"

David Field has bashed out the chants in the RSCM Common Worship Psalter and they are available for download HERE.

I now own a copy of this Psalter, so if anyone wants to sing some Psalms with me when I go back up to Oxford this weekend, do let me know. It’s dead easy!

Psalm 48

Click below for the sermon I preached on Sunday 1 July at Evening Prayer (BCP) at St. James, Poole:

Psalm 48 (26:49, 6.14MB)